Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2007-01-25 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:00 AM PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Angel Gonzalez, Chairman Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner District Five Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS MV - MAYORAL VETOES M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. "[Later...]" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. City ofAliami Page 2 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Sarnoff, Vice -Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Spence -Jones On the 25th day ofJanuary 2007, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Angel Gonzalez at 9:30 a.m., recessed at 12:03 p.m., reconvened at 2:32 p.m., recessed at 4:45 p.m., reconvened at 5:10 p.m., and adjourned at 11: 09 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado entered the meeting at 2: 37 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones and Vice Chairman Sanchez entered the meeting at 5:13 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Pamela Burns, Assistant City Clerk Chairman Gonzalez: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the January 25, 2007 meeting of the City ofMiami City Commission in this historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman, Tomas Regalado, Michelle Spence -Jones, Marc Sarnoff and myself Angel Gonzalez, your Chairman. Also on the dais are Pedro Hernandez, the City Manager, Jorge Fernandez, the City Attorney, and Pamela Burns, Assistant City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer by Commissioner Sanchez -- Vice Chairman Sanchez and the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Sarnoff. Please rise for the invocation. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 07-00104 CEREMONIAL ITEM Honoree Presenter Protocol Item Lillies of the Valley Commissioner Spence -Jones Certificate of Appreciation The Longshoreman Commissioner Spence -Jones Certificate of Appreciation Contractor's Resource Center Commissioner Spence -Jones Certificate of Appreciation 07-00104 Cover Page.pdf 07-00104 Protocol List.pdf PRESENTED Commissioner Spence -Jones presented Certificates ofAppreciation to the Lilies of the Valley, particularly Nifretta Thomas, Nicole Wild, Julie Grimes, Cirabel Olson, Brenda Riggins, Erica Wright, Rosario Kennedy, Linda Petterson, andAletha Player, for their unselfish commitment to raising the quality of life in Miami by contributing their support to the homeless women ofMiami during their transitional period to a better life; further recognizing Constance Collins, the founder and director of Lotus House. Commissioner Spence -Jones presented Certificates ofAppreciation to members of the City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 International Longshoremen's Association 1416 for their involvement as valuable community partners in addressing the needs of the citizens ofMiami by providing resources to feed the homeless and others during the holiday seasons. Commissioner Spence -Jones recognized the student volunteers of the National Social Service Organization, Huntsville, Alabama, who will assist in helping to improve the lives of the students in District 5. Jessica Odio-Duran, District Director of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, presented Captain Raul Fernandez, City ofMiami Fire -Rescue Department, with an Outstanding Achievement Award. Note for the Record: Recognition of the Contractors Resource Center was deferred. Chairman Gonzalez: Now we're going to go to presentations and proclamation. Commissioner Spence -Jones, you have a couple (TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY). Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Presentations made. Order of the Day Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We will now begin the regular meeting, and the City Attorney will state the procedure to be followed during this meeting. Mr. City Attorney. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, members of the audience. Any person who is a lobbyist must register with the City Clerk before appearing in front of the City Commission. The material in connection with each item appearing on the agenda is available for inspection during business hours at the City Clerk's office and online at wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. All decisions of the City Commission are final, except that the Mayor may veto certain items approved by the City Commission within ten calendar days of the Commission's action. The Commission may override such veto by a four fifth vote. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item on which the appeal is based. Absolutely no cell phones, beepers, or other audible sound or ringing devices are permitted in the Commission chambers. Please silence those now. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes unruly while addressing the Commission shall be barred from further attending Commission meetings, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a vote of the Commission. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or Commissioner are allowed. No signs or placards are allowed in the chambers. Person exiting the Commission chamber shall do so quietly. Persons may address the City Commission on items appearing on the `public hearings" portion of the agenda and on items where public input is solicited. Persons wishing to speak should inform the City Clerk as soon as possible of the desire to speak, giving the City Clerk their names. At the time the item is heard, persons who will speak should approach the microphones and wait to be recognized. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk, and they will be provided. The lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon. The meeting will end either at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. The items will be heard in the numbered sequence on the agenda, except for PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, which will begin after 10 a.m. Mr. Chairman, Madam Clerk, please take note. The following items are being deferred to future meetings: PH 2 and DL 1. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 MAYORAL VETOES Vice Chairman Sanchez: PH.2. Mr. Fernandez: Those two items are being deferred to a future meeting. Chairman Gonzalez: You said PH.2. Mr. Fernandez: PH.2 -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- and DI.1 are being deferred to a future meeting. PH.1 and PH.3 will be heard after 10:30. They're specially scheduled to be heard after 10:30, PH.1 and PH.3. Then, at 10 o'clock, when you begin, or soon thereafter when you begin the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) agenda, I will notify you of those items that have been continued, butt will do so at that time, not now. Please also note that there are substituted documents for D2.3 -- these are blue pages items belonging to Commissioner Sarnoff. There are -- we have substituted; they've been distributed to you this morning, D2.3 and D2.4. Mr. Chairman, those are the changes on the agenda. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. NO MAYORAL VETOES Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We don't have any vetoes from the Mayor's Office, according to the memo that have received -- Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): That's correct -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- is that correct? Ms. Burns: -- no vetoes. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Is there anyone here from the Mayor's Office? The Mayor has an item on the agenda. No, he doesn't. All right. I don't have any items. MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR MANUEL A. DIAZ DISTRICT 1 CHAIRMAN ANGEL GONZALEZ DISTRICT 2 COMMISSIONER MARC DAVID SARNOFF D2.1 07-00061 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), REQUESTING THAT THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE AD VALOREM TAX ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY TO BE ONE (1%) PER CENT OF THE PROPERTY'S ASSESSED VALUE ,TO CAP ANNUAL INCREASES IN ASSESSED VALUATION TO NO MORE THAT TWO (2%) PER CENT FROM THE PRIOR YEAR'S VALUATION, AND TO REQUIRE THAT ANY INCREASE IN ANY OTHER STATE TAX, FEE OR ASSESSMENT BE APPROVED BY NO LESS THAN A TWO-THIRDS (2/3) VOTE OF EACH CHAMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED AS STATED HEREIN. 07-00061 Legislation.pdf 07-00061 Exhibit .pdf 07-00061 Exhibit 2 .pdf 07-00061 Exhibit 3 .pdf 07-00061 Exhibit 4 .pdf CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to continue item D2.1 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007; further directing the Administration to conduct a fiscal impact study on the impact of this legislation on the City and to provide the results of said study at the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007. Direction by Commissioner Spence Jones to the City Manager for the City's state lobbyists to brief the Commissioners on bills related to ad valorem tax assessment on real property at the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sarnoff you have a couple of items, and let me tell you, it has been my practice all along, since I've been sitting here, that when I receive something five minutes before the meeting, I respectfully request that the item be deferred or continued to the next meeting until I have time to, you know, read it, because this -- there is a lot of documentation here, and I was looking over it, and there's a lot of numbers, and the statistics, and you know -- and to be honest with you, I wouldn't be able to vote on these items until I'm familiarize with, you know, what's -- what this is all about, so I don't know if you have an objection to defer it; if you want to go ahead and -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- go over it, you know. Commissioner Sarnoff -- it would be first reading, Mr. Chairman, and any discrepancies could be cleared up on second reading. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff I think -- ifI described it to you, I think -- if you're not satisfied, and you still have that same feeling, I would certainly then consider bringing it up again. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Then go ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff The first item that I have is the portability of tax relief. When I was walking for my campaign, it seemed like there were two issues that really mattered to the voters the most, and that was their wind insurance, which was skyrocketing, and their taxes. What I'm asking this Commission to do is pass a resolution which looks into and accepts, in part, California Proposition 13, Massachusetts State Law 22, which has over 35 years of experience City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 in statistical data in which to look at. What essentially it does, it allows for portability, and in gross terms, it allows a person who sells his home in Dade County and remains in Dade County to hold onto his tax bill or her tax bill when they move to another home in Dade County. It has a component of inheritability. What's happening is many of us who are inheriting from our parents or grandparents, once we put that title in our name, that property gets reassessed. As you could very well have a property that's been in the family for 50, 60 years that has a 2 or $3, 000 tax base to suddenly have a $14, 000 tax basis, and inevitably, what's going to happen is that person is forced to sell. It equally has a renovation component to it. It allows a person to renovate their house and not incur a reassessment on the renovation. What I found was many of us are becoming prisoners in our own homes, and that is, people are staying in their homes as opposed to either upsizing or downsizing. You hear a lot about downsizing. You hear about 55 years old, and they want to close up shop with a four -bedroom house or the three -bedroom house and move to a one- or two -bedroom house, or even condominium, but they can't do so because they'll be incurring a higher tax bill upon the closing of that house, so after I was visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Future, our CFO ( Chief Financial Officer), one of the things I am going to ask the City Attorney to take out is the one percent tax increase and allow it to remain upon our resolution recommendation, as it is in the State of Florida now three percent for a person who's homesteaded, so I think that would satisfy the financial accountants so that they can continue to allow the City's growth and the County's growth with regard to homestead of property continuing to escalate at a slow pace, and it actually does nothing to people who are coming in from out of state or moving here from even out of the county, and they would have to incur a full tax bill for whatever the millage rate and their sell price would be, but this is something thatl think is important to the citizens. I -- obviously, as I put it, it's above my pay grade. It's got to go to the County, and then the County; I believe has to go to the State, and if anybody read the paper this morning, our now governor is very interested in something like this. I think portability is something everyone's interested; inheritability is something for the old-timers in Florida, and renovability [sic], as I like to call it, allows us to stay in our homes and improve them without having to go to the tax man and reassess ourselves, so I hope to have a motion to at least resolve to put this in front of the County and, as well, our lobbying agencies -- or our lobbyists for Tallahassee. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would second it for the purpose of discussion, as long as the amendment has been put on the floor from one percent to three percent. Commissioner Sarnoff That's correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I will second it for the purpose of discussion. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Discussion. Let me recognize Vice Chairman Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, no, I would yield, but I'll be -- Commissioner Regalado: Thank -- Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: -- you very much, Mr. Chairman. I -- this is an issue that is very dear to me. I think it's important that the City Commission, although we don't have the legislative power to do what we want to do. We'll make a political statement, and we'll declare that, as the City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 governor has said, the two priorities of the residents in the state of Florida is, number one, the windstorm insurance, and number two, the property taxes, and as Commissioner Sarnoff have said, there are two or three bills moving in the Legislature that may result in an amendment to the state Constitution by vote of the people or by legislation of the next session of the state Legislature in March. I think it's important that we come up with this because we have here a dual personality. We are supposed to look for the City as an entity, but we represent the people, and those two interests collide in this issue. Governments need all the money that they can get because they need to spend all the money that they get, and that is why the property appraisal [sic] in Miami -Dade County is so much love by local governments and the County, because we have gotten, as government, dozens of dozens of millions of dollars in excess of what the real property should be because of the high appraisal of the property. I think that we need to deal with this, because in California, with Proposition 13, people said that the world was going to end -- as a matter offact, California is the fifth largest economy in the world, so nobody die, and people are living very happily in the state of California. I will just tell you that it is unfortunate that we are the only county in the state of Florida where we don't have an elected property appraisal [sic], and that is important because this property appraisal [sic] serve at the pleasure of the Administration; in Miami -Dade County now, the pleasure of the Mayor, and is not accountable to anyone, and you know, we, the legislatures [sic], reduce the taxes, but what is it to you if we reduce the taxes a little and the property appraisal [sic] comes and decides that your property value is bigger than the years before and the years before? So you end up paying more, and this is what is happening in the City ofMiami, and this is what is happening in Miami -Dade County. When I brought the issue that the voters ofMiami voted on, the need for a property appraisal [sic], we were sued. Last November the City of Hialeah placed the same item on the ballot, and they were sue by the same law firm in Broward, and no one knows how the people voted, and this is sad because we need to get a solution, and hopefully, the state Legislature will get, butl will tell you something to finish, because I think it's a -- this is an important issue. We are told that there's nothing we can do in the City ofMiami or Miami -Dade County about high property values. We were told that the state Legislature has to fix it and that we don't -- we cannot change the rules. Well, I have here a ruling of the State Supreme Court, dating back 1979, Florida Statutes, which specifically orders the property appraiser to consider the income generated by a given piece of property when arriving at its just valuation. Any contention to the contrary will be frivolous. That's a ruling of the State Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that this County property appraisal [sic] is using a loophole in the statutes to do whatever they want, and judging for future use, not by income, the appraisal of the property, and the results is that many people are being evicted out of their apartment buildings because they just cannot pay the rent, and many business are suffering because they cannot afford the rent because the owner have to pay more taxes, so I thank you, Commissioner Sarnoff, butt would go further, and maybe we can examine this on the next Commission meeting. We should, as a City, in behalf of the resident, sue the property appraisal [sic] ofMiami-Dade County in order to get the real state statutes being apply in Miami -Dade County, according to the Supreme Court. There is no other county in the state of Florida -- and I have done a lot of research -- that values its property by future land use; commercial property should be appraised by income, and if we do that, we won't have any problem, and yes, governments would have a little less money to function, but I'll tell you, we have such a brilliant mind in Larry Springs [sic] that I'm sure that he will be able to live when we have less taxes to pay. Government just have to do more with less, and I would hope that the state Legislature will place this on the ballot or by legislation that will apply, because I'm willing to support any effort to help with this crisis, which is a crisis, so thank you, Commissioner Sarnoff. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion because I think it's a worthy resolution. It is a resolution, not an ordinance, so once we pass this, it becomes law. Now I think what we -- we have a fiduciary responsibility. I think that we need to make sure that there are no hidden consequences in our actions on this item. We also need to let the public know that City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 we just don't simply react; we think on this proposition, which is -- basically, it'll be the Miami version of California Proposition 13. I think we need to ask certain questions before we do that. I think we need to ask that -- what impact would this have on our budget. What impact would it have on our services? What impact would it have on local businesses? What local -- what impact would it have on our school districts? And then again, a very important issue is what impact would it have on social services? I think that before we vote on this, we need to make sure that someone clearly puts forth a recommendation based on other cities -- because when you talk about California, they pay the highest taxes in the United States, if you look at their taxes, but we need to make sure that those -- this resolution does not have a negative impact on all of the things that I stated before, so -- Commissioner Regalado: Can I just --? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- does anybody -- has anybody from the Administration looked at that? Can somebody tell me that it's not going to affect our budget; that it's not going to affect our services; that it's not going to affect our school district? Commissioner Spence -Jones: That was actually going to be my question, too. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Commissioners, ifI may. I know that we had a very serious concern with the reduction of the cap to the one percent. We discussed that with Commissioner Sarnoff, and we agreed to leave that at three percent. With reference to the other items, the inheritability, the portability, and the feasibility, we agree with the concepts, but we have not, let's say, done any fiscal impact as to potential affects. I was just talking to Mr. Spring Vice Chairman Sanchez: And are -- Mr. Hernandez: -- on it now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we required by law to have a physical [sic] impact study before we approve something like this, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Fernandez: Well, what you're doing is you're recommending to the County to, and Tallahassee, exercise its muscle so that this can become a constitutional question or an amendment to the Constitution, and so to do that, you do not have to have a fiscal impact because you need fiscal impact to your own ordinances. When you pass ordinances that are under your control that would have fiscal impact, that's when you need it, but this is statewide impact. Is it prudent for you to request a fiscal impact? Yes. But it is required? No, not for the passage of this item. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I think it's important that the Administration needs to provide to this legislative body a physical [sic] impact study of how would it affect us if this is approved. Larry. Commissioner Sarnoff Can I --? Commissioner Regalado: Can I say something? Can I say some --? Excuse me. Commissioner Sarnoff Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: Regardless of your studies, regardless of your analysis, if this goes to a ballot, it will be approved throughout the state of Florida, and municipalities and county will just have to live with it. Regardless of your studies and our concerns, if the state Legislature on March passes the bill that they want to do in terms of reduction of property taxes and it's signed City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 by the governor, you know, we just have to approve it, so to me it's an exercise in futility because the thing is that we know that when the voters of the state of Florida approve the additional $25, 000 for seniors four years ago, the budget took a hit, and it had to be approved because it was the state law, an amendment to the Constitution. Last November, when the voters approved another additional $25, 000 for 65 older [sic] and low-income resident, it has to be implemented. We have, in Miami, 8,511 property owners that qualify for the $75, 000 homestead exemption, and we just have to live with that. I haven't heard you cry about it, Larry, and I know that you'll figure out, because this is being driven by the state Legislature. This is being driven by a grassroots group that has collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot, either on a special election or the Presidential Election of 208 [sic], so you know, this is symbolical to me. It doesn't have any impact now, nor it would change anything later, but it's good that people understand, in the Legislature, that we have a crisis in terms of taxes in the City ofMiami, and the City want just to voice their report to what we feel. Yes, it would have an impact, which is nothing we can do about it. It's like taxes and death. I mean, the people will approve this. Polls Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: -- show 80 percent of the people in the state of Florida will vote for sort of a Proposition 13 amendment, so I don't understand the problem here. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Let -- Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you want to add to that before I make my comment. I think I might want to hear what you have to say first before I make a comment. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. Larry Spring (Acting Chief Financial Officer): Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Spring: Larry Spring, acting CFO (Chief Financial Officer), City ofMiami. Basically what I just wanted to put on the record is -- What Commissioner Regalado is saying, yeah, it may be true. If the State implements this statewide, yeah, the cities are going to have to suck it up. However, I think it would be prudent for us to do a couple of things. We need to talk about the parameters of portability. You know, there has to be some assumptions made on how we would port. Is it only within the municipality? Is it within the County? Is it within a region, the entire state? All of that would have different impacts on city government, and our -- locally, our tax base. If you're talking about somebody that ports from city to city -- you know, you move from this block to that block -- in essence, I'm still collecting the same amount of money, so there's a lot of parameters there. I would appreciate the opportunity to at least do some impact because I think it would be prudent for the State to consider our -- the impact to the local government, and I assure you, all of the Budget directors and CFOs of all of these municipalities will be clamoring to the governor and the legislative body on this item, because you know, a small city like Lake Mary, or something probably heavily depends on their property tax revenue, and to have it capped, or you know -- and I won't say artificially capped, but to have it capped in any way would have perilous impacts on those cities, yes. Commissioner, yeah, would we figure out what we'd have to do? Yes, we would, but you know, I think we need to give the state Legislature the benefit of our feedback and say, this is the number, you know, so please consider that when City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 you're looking at some legislation like this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I support it. I just want to know how much it's going to cost us, because -- Mr. Spring: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- look, they approve the Bullet Train, and we didn't have funding for it. The reduction of class sizes, the State didn't have money for it. I want to make sure, if we approve it that we have the money for it. Mr. Spring: Sure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman -- you finished, Larry? Mr. Spring: I'm done. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm glad that you did explain it a lot -- I understand it better now, Commissioner Sarnoff, because I was very confused in reading it in the very beginning, because at the end of the day, I was really concerned about a couple of issues. The one thing that I did like about it and -- about what you were proposing was the issue of the tax burden regarding many of the families that move away and their seniors or their family members are left in -- leave them these homes, and then they'll have the burdens of handling their taxes, and quite frankly, I'm dealing with that on a -- almost a daily basis, you know, with Liberty City, Overtown, and other areas throughout my district, so from that perspective, I thought that it was really -- I like what you put together regarding it. My only concern or question -- and I don't know if this is from -- for the Manager or for the Attorney -- City Attorney was the fact that there was no economic analysis in reference to what would happen if we decided to vote or support it, and even though my wonderful Commissioner Regalado down on the end said that, you know, if it happens, then we just fry to figure out a way to make things happen for -- through the City; we always do, but that's the reason why we can't get garbage trucks when we need them, or we can't support the social service programs when we need them because of the lack of funding that, at least what we're being told from a City standpoint, we have so we can only operate from what the feds are giving us, so you know, on one note, I understand it, but I don't want to also have my disfrict be affected because we decided to vote on something and then I'm later on fighting for more garbage trucks for the workers that are struggling, you know, jumping in and out of trucks, you know, to making sure that my streets and -- stay clean in my disfrict, because now we have to cut off the employees that have to work for whatever reason, or we can't play -- pay decent wages to our Litter Busters that work day in and day out, you know, frying to make sure that they take care of their families, so I don't want to hear that, you know, OK, if we lose money on this end, then we'll find -- figure out a way to have it happen, especially when I'm being told later on by the Administration that we couldn't do this because what we passed a year ago affects that, so that is like, you know -- that's a tough pill to swallow, so for me, I would honestly like to have, from either Larry or from the City Manager, some sort of analysis on what type of impact this would have on us, because eventually, it will affect the residents of my district; that's one point, not that I won't support the other portions of what you're proposing. I think, on one end, it definitely does help my disfrict, too, and last but not least, you know, I think it's also very important for us to look at the current legislation that's being proposed on this issue. I understand that there's seven or eight things being proposed in the State at this present time, and I'd like to know what those things are. Are those things that we can piggyback off of? Are there things that, you know, maybe we can, you know, utilize that are already out there, Mr. City Attorney? I'm just frying to understand, you know, if I'm being told that on one end that we have seven or eight things floating from a state perspective -- and I'm assuming that we're hearing this from our state lobbyists -- which, by the way, who's directing the state lobbyists on the issues that, you know, we want to have addressed in Tallahassee regarding this issue? City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Spring: I can answer that question. It's our legislative liaison. Ignacio is the person who interfaces with the lobbyists -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Spring: -- so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Now has Ignacio briefed either one of the Commissioners on where we are regarding this particular issue? Mr. Spring: I would say not specifically to that issue, but what was going to tell you is I do have some information that can share with all the Commissioners regarding the draft report that the Property Tax Reform Committee that the previous governor convened, they have a draft report that talks about all of these issues, and what will become -- you know, what was planned to come forth, and I think it will address those items that are going to be considered, so I will -- I have a draft copy of it, so I will make sure I get it distributed to all the Commissioners. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. City Manager, I just want to -- Commissioner Sarnoff I want to say something. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- put on the record, though, because I think it's important, because when items like this come up that we want to, you know, have addressed from a state perspective, I think it's really important that if we do have lobbyists working for us in Tallahassee, perhaps, if Commissioner Sarnoff would have been briefed on what is already else - - what else is already out there, then maybe we wouldn't be addressing this right now, but think that's part of the problem. He's trying to address an issue that is clearly not just in his district, butt guess I'm assuming all of us -- you know, and all of the Commissioners are having to deal with it fi^om the standpoints of our constituents, butt just think it's important that before we decide to vote on it -- we've already voted on it, so that's fine. I just want to make sure that at least I put on the record how important it is for us to at least understand the economic impact of what it will have on us, one way or the other, and to say that it won't, or we'll find a way to make it happen, and then when budget time comes around, they start telling you, "Oh, no, Commissioner, that can't happen, "you know, I have a concern with that. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, ifI may. From the legislative perspective, I think it's important that this Commission provides direction to us as to the items that you want to have supported in Tallahassee at the State Legislative Session. I think it's important that we bring this up to you. For example, there's another item under Commissioner Sanchez's blue pages that deals with items that he's requesting that we support. I think that's important. With respect to these items themselves, there is several items on, for example, portability at the state level that we don't know exactly the potential impact. I mean, we will have to analyze several scenarios, andl agree that working with Mr. Spring, we have to bring back to you the best, let's say, guesswork, educated guesswork that we can do so you're apprised of potential impacts, but many of them may be, in essence, totally out of our control and at the state level, but think that it's -- we owe it to you to, in essence, provide the best available information as to impact. Commissioner Sarnoff IfI can say just a word. In 2001 Time Magazine rated the City ofMiami as the most affordable large city to live in. In November 2006 they called it the most unaffordable city in the United States. If you all don't smell -- wake up and smell the roses, they'll be coming out of your graves. People cannot afford to live here. People cannot afford to move here, and people who want to remain here are captured in their homes, and if you don't realize it, go out and check. I mean, I live in the district that gives 64 percent of the revenue to this City, and the people are stuck in the homes that they're in, and you call it what you want, but City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 if you don't put a portability component into a tax relief plan, people are simply going to move to North and South Carolina. They may as well create the Bullet Train that they didn't fund so they can bullet the people right up there, right into the next suburb in North and South Carolina. If you don't put inheritability as a component, which nobody is discussing in Tallahassee, then you are going to lose your ethnic heritage in many of these neighborhoods, and finally, if you don't allow people to fix their homes and not be reassessed, they have no reason whatsoever to stay in the great City ofMiami, so you could debate this, and you can obscure it, it's coming right at you. It's happening as we speak. Do whatever statistical analysis you want. You can get in front of a wave, or you could be behind the wave. This is something this City needs to address, and it needs to get behind it, so this will happen some time in March. If you don't put portability in here, you're going to lose your best tax base in the City ofMiami. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. This is an important issue, and this is a philosophical discussion, because what we're approving here is not a law, so it has no power, but it is important to send the message. It's impossible to have an analysis because we don't know the final product. There are three or four bills navigating through different committees in the state Legislature, but one thing is for sure. The state Legislature is under tremendous pressure to address the property taxes in the state of Florida because the migration from South Florida to North Carolina, it is one that has called the attention of the people in Tallahassee. Last week Commissioner Sanchez was there when the governor told us, a group of people that were in a meeting place in the state capital, that in March, the state Legislature and himself will be addressing the property taxes issue. Because the people that rode with us in the buses, three of them from Miami, to ask for help in the insurance crisis, when the governor stood there, and the Speaker of the House, Marco Rubio, stood there, and we had senators and representatives, the governor said, "Tell me, " and then, you know, people had these signs about insurance, and then everybody start saying, "Taxes, taxes, taxes, property taxes," and the governor of this great state of Florida made a commitment, not in front of us, but in front of more than 10 to 15 TV (Television) cameras that were there from all the state of Florida, "We will deal with the property taxes issue, " and we can expect maybe some release. We can expect the League of Cities to lobby against this item or some of them, but at the end of the day, this is a governor that has a commitment from the people. Sometimes some people will say, "Well, you know, give us a solution, " and I will tell you what we can do, because we do not control the state Legislature, nor the state vote, the statewide vote, but there is something that we should be looking at it now in advance. "[Later...]" Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Can we --? You know, we have had half an hour of discussion on this item. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just wanted to -- Chairman Gonzalez: I think it's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- make a recommendation, Mr. Chair, if you would allow me, and it'll be very -- Chairman Gonzalez: Not even discussions; arguments. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no dis -- We all want to lower property taxes, OK. We all want to protect the homeowners. I think that your resolution that's put forward is -- I second it because I think it has valid [sic], but the concern here that I have, Marc, is that, first of all, being that it's a resolution on your blue pages, we have not had an opportunity from the Administration to give us a well thought-out brief and the concerns here are that what are the consequences? How is it going to affect us? And that's -- if it -- if they come back and they say, "Look, it's not going to City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 affect our city. It's going to affect us in this way, or this amount," and I say it's worth doing it, I could support it. My recommendation is I think we discussed it enough. Let's bring it back under a city -- under the City agenda; that way the Administration could give us the reports that I think some of the Commissioners have asked, and then we'll come out and vote for it. We either vote up or vote it down, but my concern is the way it was brought and presented to the Commission, just like the Chair stated. You know, you have substitute items coming up at the last minute, I don't think that's the proper way to do it. I command [sic] you for taking the leadership on this, and I'm willing to support it, but I can't make an intelligent decision when I have not been able to have all the information that have been given to me because I -- Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah. Let me -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- have not been briefed. Commissioner Sarnoff -- withdraw it. I apologize for being a neophyte and not -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Nah, but -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- really understanding the process that well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You don't need to apologize. Commissioner Sarnoff -- but -- no, I agree. Let's put it back in the hopper. Let's let the Administration do their due diligence. Out of respect for the Chairman, I will withdraw D2.3, 4 - - I think it's 2, 3, and 4, so he can read them, and I'll bring them back on my next blue pages. I just think -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. Marc, if you could -- no, no. Mr. City Manager, we could direct you to have this item be put on the regular agenda -- Chairman Gonzalez: On the regular agenda. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- where it's properly advertised, where -- well, which it is properly advertised, it is, but people could come, because this is a very important issue. You're talking about reducing taxes. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, you're not -- let me just correct you -- Commissioner Regalado: You're not reducing taxes. Commissioner Sarnoff -- one more -- you're not talking about reducing taxes. You're talking about rebudgeting. You're talking about port -- no one's saying to reduce one penny of taxes. This hasn't changed -- you know -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But Marc, it -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- this City -- wait, wait. Let me just say this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- hasn't been (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Sarnoff This City plays millage rate games, you know. We lower our mill rate, and then we tell we've given tax relief to the citizens. You've given them nothing. You've given them ice in the winter. This gives them portability, the ability of people to move around in Dade County. I've given you an entire law here. You're right, Commissioner, based on how I know offices operate now, this needs to go to the Administration. I'm more than agreeing with you, but City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 don't call it tax -- it is not a tax reduction. Nobody's getting their taxes reduced. People are maintaining their taxability, or tax ability, where they are. People who inherit, people that move within Dade County, and I stress within Dade County, and just so you know, this is a 35-year-old statute. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States innumerable times. This is the law in Massachusetts. This will be the law or some components of it in Florida, because trust me, the citizens will not put up with us, so we either get in front of it, or we stay behind it, but I intend on getting in front of it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: So do I, if we have all the proper studies and the -- and recommendations from the Administration. All right. What's the will -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of the Commission? Chairman Gonzalez: We have -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So what are we doing with the item? Commissioner Sarnoff I withdraw it and give it to the Administration, and ask them to bring it up as soon as the Ghost of Christmas Present, Past, and Future gives us a report on it, hopefully, within 30 or 40 days -- Mr. Spring: I -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- so that -- Mr. Spring: -- will commit to that time frame. What I would like to do, though, is meet with you to discuss some of the assumptions that I should use in developing my analysis. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But wait a minute. The Commissioner can request 60 days, 30 days, to have it -- Mr. Spring: Of course. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in the City Commission agenda, and if he's willing to make that motion, I'm willing to second that motion. Mr. Spring: I don't have a problem with that. I was just saying from the time -- I need to know what -- Commissioner Sarnoff I understand. Mr. Spring: -- the assumptions are in building the analysis. Commissioner Sarnoff Well -- Mr. Spring: That's it. Commissioner Sarnoff -- the beauty of it, it's -- this is law, and we can read what the law says, and then, fortunately, this is what you do for a living. Thank God, you do it versus me. You actually fry to figure out -- and some of it -- Commissioner Regalado's absolutely right; you cannot statistically determine who's going -- City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Spring: What all -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- to port their tax bill. Mr. Spring: Exactly, exactly, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so that -- Mr. Spring: -- I can -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Marc, you made the motion? Commissioner Sarnoff I'll -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We had -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second it. Chairman Gonzalez: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We had a motion, and we had a second. Commissioner Sarnoff You have to finish the motion. I can withdraw the motion. Chairman Gonzalez: You're going to withdraw --? Commissioner Sarnoff I'll withdraw the motion. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so then we have another motion, right -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So somebody has to -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to bring it back in 30 days? Commissioner Sarnoff I'll make a motion that we bring back, what is it, D2 --? Vice Chairman Sanchez: D2.1 and -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- D2.1 as part of the City's agenda, and hopefully, with a report within 30 days. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And can I just add, if you don't mind? Because I would like to, personally, being a neophyte on this issue, if there's any way that I could at least get the Administration to have, I guess, Ignacio, whoever's responsible for whatever's happening in Tallahassee, for us to be briefed on what is actually out there already because I think it's important for us to know it? I don't know if the -- my other colleagues are interested in knowing, but I definitely would like to know it. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, on the issue of portability, I'm quite sure that, at the State level, there are several options being introduced as bills, and I think it would be wise for us to take a look at them, and maybe report back on the one that we feel would be best to support. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to know what's already out there. Mr. Hernandez: Yes. City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: I would like to know that. Commissioner Sarnoff I agree. I agree. Mr. Hernandez: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff The only thing I know of that none -- no bill has these three components in it -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, and I'm -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- and these are three -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- just saying I'd like to confirm that. Commissioner Sarnoff -- components -- right. These are three components that everybody at this dais should have an interest in. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and I think all of us have agreed -- I think I -- my opening comment on -- with that was saying that we definitely support that. At least on my end, I support that. There's no way in the world that I could not, but I also want to be responsible, and I'd also like to know what else is out there, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah, and then -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I'm asking for the Administration to at least make sure that whoever the lobbyist is, or our staff person that's dealing with the lobbyist, for them to let us know what else is out there. Mr. Hernandez: Definitely. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Let's see. We are on the 20 -- today is the 24th, right? The 20 -- Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): 25th. Commissioner Regalado: 25th, 25th, so in 30 days will be February -- the last meeting in February? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, actually, I'm hoping it's going to be before then because March is when the session begins. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff Exactly, of course. Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Forget it. Just don't do it anyway because it isn't worth it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Because you need to -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Larry, can you -- City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: -- do it -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- bring this back -- Mr. Hernandez: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- for the next Commission meeting? Commissioner Regalado: -- to the committees. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Are you prepared to -- can you do -- can you look at this over the next --? Mr. Hernandez: I think that, in essence, if we have a determination by February 22, which I believe is the second meeting in February, that will define the City's position, and we'll go forward -- Mr. Spring: Well, I'll do -- Mr. Hernandez: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) timely. Mr. Spring: -- everything in my ability to have it done, you know, in a week or two's time, and we'll see what happens. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but meanwhile, the lobbying team has no direction. Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Commissioner Regalado: They cannot meet with committees -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can we amend it for the second meeting -- I mean, the first meeting in February, please? Can you -- Larry -- Mr. Spring: I will do -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- is this something that --? Mr. Spring: -- my best to get it done for the first meeting. I mean, that's all I can commit to -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Mr. Spring: -- right now. I have -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so if my colleagues, can we move past this, and by the second meeting -- I mean, by the first meeting in February -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Fine. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- can we just -- if Larry's saying that he can get it done by then, can we just accept that and get that from him at that particular time? Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Fine. City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's fine with me. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- fine, so Larry has said he can do it, so -- Mr. Hernandez: Commissioners, we'll brief you on the briefings for the 8th agenda as to where we are, and if we're ready enough, we'll have it on the 8th. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I have a mover, but I don't have a second on that motion. Commissioner Sarnoff Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I second it. Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, I moved it. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion and we have a -- Ms. Burns: The mover. Commissioner Sarnoff I (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Gonzalez: -- second. All in favor, say "aye." Vice Chairman Sanchez: I second it. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. D2.2 07-00100 ORDINANCE In Commission AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE X, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING AND PLANNING/TREE TRUST FUND, " BY PROVIDING FOR DEPOSITS OF FINES COLLECTED FOR ILLEGAL TREE REMOVAL, FOR THE USE OF THE TRUST FUNDS TO RELOCATE TREES TO PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), AND FOR PERIODIC DISTRIBUTION OF SAPLINGS TO THE PUBLIC TO ENHANCE TREE CANOPY COVERAGE IN THE CITY; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 07-00100 Legislation.pdf DEFERRED Item D2.2 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. What other items? Chairman Gonzalez: D2.2. City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff No, I'll withdraw those for -- so that you and the Commissioners can look at the recently handed out papers. Chairman Gonzalez: All right -- Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): And on what -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so -- Ms. Chiaro: -- agenda do you wish them to be placed? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Do you want them on the regular agenda? Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): On the 8th. Commissioner Sarnoff D2 -- what was it? D2 -- I think it's D2 -- Chairman Gonzalez: D2.2, D2.3 -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- 3 -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and D2.4. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and D2.4. Commissioner Regalado: On the 8th of February. Commissioner Spence -Jones: On the regular agenda. Ms. Chiaro: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: The first meeting in February. Ms. Chiaro: I didn't -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Commissioner Sarnoff, she needs you to -- Ms. Chiaro: Commissioner Sarnoff -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- give her direction. Ms. Chiaro: -- for those items to be placed on the next Commission meeting agenda? Commissioner Sarnoff Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: D2.2, D2 -- Commissioner Sarnoff D2 -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- 3, and D2.4. Ms. Chiaro: Thank you. D2.3 07-00115 ORDINANCE First Reading City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ARTICLE NO. 8.1 ENTITLED, "TREE PROTECTION" OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING ADDED DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, FEES, AND CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL; PROVIDING FOR TREE REPLACEMENT AND PROTECTION, APPEAL CRITERIA AND FINES, CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT, PENALTIES AND REMEDIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 07-00115 Legislation.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommend approval to City Commission on July 19, 2006 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will add and amend certain criteria in Article 8.1 of the Zoning Ordinance entitled, "Tree Protection." DEFERRED Item D2.3 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item D2.3, please see item D2.2. D2.4 05-00335 ORDINANCE (REQUIRES 4/5THS VOTE) AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE X OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/CODE ENFORCEMENT," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2-811, 2-814 AND 2-817 OF SAID CITY CODE, TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS SECTION AND TO CLARIFY THE MAXIMUM DAILY FINES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE. 05-00335 Legislation.pdf First Reading DEFERRED Item D2.3 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item D2.4, please see item D2.2. City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 DISTRICT 3 VICE CHAIRMAN JOE SANCHEZ D3.1 07-00046 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, URGING GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO SUPPORT THE ISSUES AS STATED HEREIN, DURING THE 2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN. 07-00046 Legislation.pdf MOTION A motion was made by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, and was passed unanimously, directing the City Manager to schedule a workshop to discuss a resolution proposing that Governor Charlie Crist and the Florida Legislature support City -related issues referencing municipal home rule, a fair and equitable tax sfructure, dedicated documentary stamp fees as a funding source for the State and Local Government Housing Trust Fund, and other related issues; further discussing limiting ad valorem tax assessment on real property, in an effort to reach a mutual consensus. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. D3.1. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Vice Chairman Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. All the information is provided for you in the package, and that's the Florida League of Cities, and what they do is, the Florida League of Cities focus on the issues that are important to the cities, and basically, they're presented to the Administration, and then the Commissioners get to review them, and all this is is a resolution of the City ofMiami Commission, urging Governor Charlie Crist and the members of the Florida Legislature to support the issues as stated herein, during the 207 [sic] legislative session; directing the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the resolution to the official designee [sic] herein, and I would make a motion. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. There is -- we have a motion on D3.1. Is there a second? Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. It dies -- Chairman Gonzalez: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Well, I have here -- I have a question. We're asking the Legislature to supports a tax sfructure that is fair and equitable and is completely neutral and allows municipality the flexibility to provide adequate services in their community. Is that a decrease or a raise in taxes? Can you --? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is it an increase or a decrease? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, is it a increase or decrease in taxes? Vice Chairman Sanchez: You know what, let me -- let's defer the item till the afternoon, and I will come back and give you a complete briefing on that -- City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and as a matter offact, I'm willing to make another recommendation, because I could see where the Commission is heading. Let me make recommendations, and maybe we could start working out some of the issues that we have here. I would recommend workshops so when issues come up, you have -- because at least my items had all the backing in the Commission agenda, so therefore, you could have read all the documents that are there, but I'll bring it back this afternoon. If not, what I'll prepare is a workshop which all the Commissioners will be invited, it'll be properly advertised through the City, under the sunshine, and there in those meetings we'll explain all the items that are in front of you on this Commission meeting, so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And Commissioner Sanchez, I'm assuming that we're going to try to do this before March, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, we're going to try to -- well, I'm going to try to bring it back this afternoon and answer the Commissioners' questions. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Now, if there are problems, I would fry to do it as quickly as possible. I'm just hoping that all the Commissioners could make it to the workshop because, you know, there's a lot of bills here that really benefit the City, but if the -- you know, if the Commission doesn't want to vote on them, that's perfectly fine. All right, so Mr. Chairman, we'll move on. "[Later...]" Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'd like to bring back my item, D3.1, and I would be glad to answer the concerns that Commissioner Regalado had pertaining to the resolution, both on taxes. The resolution states two points on taxes. One is the property tax system, which the resolution reads as follow: "Various proposed revisions to the property tax system would have substantial adverse impact of all municipalities in Florida should they be adopted, " so therefore, this ordinance protects the property taxes from any increase or any adverse that might have a negative effect on the property owners. The other issue pertaining to tax is the resolution clearly supports a tax structure that is fair and equitable and is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) neutral and allows municipalities the flexibility to provide adequate service in their community, so therefore, that one also clearly protects the taxpayers, and this resolution does not mention anything about increasing taxes. However, I would like, before we vote on the issue, to have the City Attorney read the entire resolution, which clearly touches on infrastructure, it touches on housing, and we believe that this resolution -- the resolution clearly protects the City, the taxpayers, and is a resolution worthy of supporting -- supported by the legislative body. Mr. City Attorney, would you read --? Commissioner Regalado: Before you do that, I'm -- I have a problem with this because this item that the League of Cities is presenting to the Legislature is precisely the opposite of what we all said that we support here a few minutes ago; tax -neutral services. What the City -- what the League of City [sic] is proposing to the state Legislature don't do portability, don't do decreases in taxes, don't reduce the taxes; it's very clear, and this is why I said I am sure that the League of Cities is opposed to this because the League of Cities represents the governments, and it's very understandable. The governments are scare of this kind of tactic, but we cannot direct the lobbying team to lobby for a tax -neutral legislature, and then decide that we want to lobby to reduce property taxes, because we're doing the opposite here, and I don't know. I understand that the League has very good proposals, but I am really trouble by this proposal of the League of City [sic], which is not your proposal; it's just a League of City [sic]. It is wrong. It is wrong City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 because we should be lobbying to reduce property taxes, not to have taxes neutral, which mean business as usual, and that is why, Mr. Vice Chairman, I had this question, and I'm sorry I'm delaying the process, but I think you represent the City on the League of City [sic], and I don't -- I understand that there are many issues that you want to bring to the state Legislature through the League of Cities, but I cannot support this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: -- because it would be denying our will to ask the Legislature for property tax relief and that's all I wanted to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but this res -- Commissioner Regalado: -- show. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- this resolution does not only focus on taxes. That's why -- Commissioner Regalado: Exactly. Vice Chairman Sanchez: If you would allow me. Just a minute. I think that's why it's important to have the City Attorney read the entire resolution because it focuses everything from infrastructure to schooling, and like they say, the sugar's [sic] in the pudding here, so that's why it's important -- let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here now. I'm also open to setting up a workshop where we could implement all these things because I think we're all heading in the right direction. I mean, we all want to lower our taxes. We all want to protect our citizens based on relief of all kind, not only property taxes, butt want you to allow me the opportunity to have the City Attorney read the entire ordinance [sic] so you could listen to it and the people that are here today, the taxpayers that are here, and the ones that are watching on NET-77 [sic] understand the entire concept of this resolution. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Vice Chairman, can I say something? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sure. Commissioner Sarnoff I have read this, and it has wonderful platitudes in it, but I question would it be better spent and better served to have this come up right around the time we have Larry Spring come back to us with some numbers as to what tax relief or tax stasis would do in the -- for us? Isn't this better put as part of our package? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, this has nothing to do with numbers. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, you're right. It-- they're nice, platitude statements, but I don't know what it does. I mean, this does -- this -- if you read this, it just -- actually, why don't you let him read it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- because -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, listen. With all due respect, you want to defer the item, we'll defer it. You want to vote -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'm just suggest -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- no -- I'll tell you what. I'm going to make a motion to support it. IfI City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 don't have a second, it dies. If it has a second, we'll vote on it, and if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Then I'm going to make a motion, if it doesn't pass, that we create a workshop where we implement not only this concept, but your concept, and then bring it back fully digested to this Commission to get something done in this Commission so we can do what we're here to do, which is to lower our taxes and improve the quality of life, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so there's a motion. IfI don't get a second, it's perfectly fine. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. I just -- yes, I do want to second it, but I want to ask one quick question real fast. Is there any way that --? Because I stepped out -- off the dais, and I apologize. When -- I'm assuming that I was the next one coming up for my item. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Would you do me a favor? Chairman Gonzalez: You're still -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Still you are. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Would you -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I had no idea that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- allow me -- if you would yield to have the City Attorney read the entire ordinance [sic] in the record, please? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure, Commissioner Sanchez, butt want to have clarity, because I'm trying to get caught up on -- I stepped out for a second. I just want to ask this quick question. Have we decided not to have the workshop? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, we'll all see. It all depends on this. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm asking -- Commissioner Sarnoff What (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Chairman Gonzalez: We haven't -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It all depends. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- what happened to the workshop? Chairman Gonzalez: We talk about the possibility of having a workshop, but it wasn't -- it hasn't been proposed officially, a date haven't been set -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let him read it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: What happened -- Commissioner Sarnoff What I suggest -- City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to the workshop? Chairman Gonzalez: -- now we're pending the City Attorney to finally read the resolution and then take action on the item, and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, read the resolution, please. The Resolution was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Tell you what I'm going to do. For the sake of harmony, for the sake of a workshop, because I think that both resolutions have a lot of things in common, and we're both heading in the right direction, and the last thing thatl want to do is have one side of the dais roll one way, and the other side of the dais roll the other way. I would respectfully request that the Administration set up a workshop addressing these items, both on Commissioner Sarnoffs blue page and my blue page, to come together on a mutual, agreeable resolution so we could bring it back to this Commission and approve it 5/0, so therefore, that's the motion that make. I will withdraw my item for the sake of -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- harmony to have everyone come to the table, with the Administration. All the Commissioners are invited. It'll be posted, so if one Commissioner doesn't show up, he was invited. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: All opposed? Commissioner Spence -Jones: So we're going back to a -- I'm sorry. We're going back to what was originally proposed, correct? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Workshop, and the City Manager will schedule that workshop; it'll be properly advertised, and we should be able to resolve some of our differences. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, if you allow me, I would like to be able to, during the break, look at the calendar, and then come back to you after the break, sometime in the afternoon, with the potential dates, so it will be said on the record as to when that meeting will take place. City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO D4.1 07-00075 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ABOUT SOLID WASTE VEHICLES, MAINTENANCE ISSUES, AND WHISTLE BLOWER CASE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SUBJECT MATTER. 07-00075 Cover Memo.pdf DISCUSSED Direction by Chairman Gonzalez to the City Manager to initiate a City promotional campaign that would advise its residents of trash pick-up days and the consequences of violating the City's Code as it relates to frash pick-up and illegal dumping. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. D4.1. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hope that this will be brief. There was a comment the other day here about another fire in a garbage truck, and also last Commission meeting, we approve some funds to buy 12 new garbage trucks. There was a problem that another truck had -- that one of the wheels came off the axle completely and had an accident, and I just wanted to get a report from the Solid Waste director, maybe the GSA (General Services Administration) director, and the Manager, not on the litigation of the garbage trucks that caught fire, but on what are we doing in order to maintain the same level of services that we know is one of the priorities in the City and that has been the best service that the residents are getting daily, which is the garbage, and the trash, and the recycle pick-up, so that would be my question. Mario Soldevilla: Thank you, Commissioner. Mario Soldevilla, director of Solid Waste. Let me update you in terms of the -- our fleet, the program, and we do continue to upgrade our fleet. During last year's budget -- this year's budget process, you appropriated $1.5 million for equipment, and just recently, last Commission meeting, you appropriated an additional $2 million for equipment, so with that three and a half million dollars, what we're doing is that we are pretty much replacing the Lodal fleet. We had anticipated in buying 16 new garbage trucks. As a matter of fact, that purchase order is already in place. We believe that the first six trucks, we'll probably be getting in March. The remaining ten trucks will be throughout the year. As you know, these things, they have to be manufactured, and it's a two-step process. One is the chassis that need to be built, and second is the body that goes along, which actually does the automated collection work. In addition to those 16 frucks, we're also purchasing four of the more -- of the traditional railroaders, and there's where we're at. That gives me a total of 20 trucks that will be replaced this year. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm sorry. I just so have a -- I just -- I'm glad -- again, I think the last couple of meetings we've discussed the additional frucks, and I appreciate Joe's also input on a lot of that to make sure that -- and yours, Mario -- you know, those garbage frucks -- we got the additional frucks that's needed. I mean, I'm -- personally -- and I would also want to recommend for the Commissioners that have not, I think it's important for you to ride with some of these workers to see the conditions that they're working in. I got a chance to at least ride with some of the guys four or five months ago to kind of see what's happening with them over there, and I think it's important for us to gain a greater appreciation of how hard they work. I just want to make sure or stress that the City continue to work hard towards getting the new fleet to ensure that these workers are safe, andl know we -- earlier we were talking about funds being utilized, or you know, perhaps not being made available for whatever reason or the fear of that City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 happening. I mean, I got a chance to ride with a guy that had been in a -- had been in two fires in a truck, and I happen to ride in that same fruck -- Mr. Soldevilla: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so I just want to make sure that this is not bottom -- put bottom on the list of things that are important. You know, the things that are not so pretty always seem to be the last things that we want to focus our energies on, but I'm glad to see that at least the Administration is moving towards that, butt want to also add on top of that, Commissioner Regalado, is that we also need to figure out a way to provide maintenance -- more maintenance support so that when these trucks go down or any truck goes down in our great City, that we do have enough workers available that are not overworked, overtired, and not able to at least make sure that the equipment is working 100 percent, and I think that that's what's happening with a lot of the workers, so I'm going to ask that we please -- you know, as we begin to look at, you know, things that are really, really important, that we consider the people that keep -- just imagine, if we didn't have the garbage workers out for a week. Mr. Soldevilla: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Imagine what this great, wonderful city that we call `Magic City" would look like, so I just would like to encourage that not only that we begin to continue to find support for the garbage trucks, but we also continue to provide the much -needed maintenance support to make sure that once we do get equipment in, that it's maintained properly. Mr. Soldevilla: Yeah, and Commissioner, I appreciate what you're doing -- what you're saying, but you know, we have had a very aggressive fleet replacement program over the past several years, OK. Chairman Gonzalez: I have -- and I spoke to you, Mr. Manager, about the issue of solid waste. I believe that we have the best department or the best solid waste service probably throughout the entire state, but we have a serious problem, and the problem is that we have a lot of -- we have people out there that are putting out trash every single day of the week, every single day of the week. My office staff is out in my neighborhoods writing reports and send the report to you of illegal dumpings, and I call it illegal dumping, not only the people that come from outside the City ofMiami and dump in the City ofMiami, but call it illegal dumping even the resident that needs to put the frash out on Wednesday, and they put it out on Sunday, and throughout the entire week you have frash all over the City. I don't know how many inspectors you have. I don't know how they are divided. I believe that we need to do one thing. I believe that we need to put out there an informational blitz, send flyers, go through the media on public announcements, Channel 9, the whole nine yards, and once we have inform -- once we're confident that we have inform the residents of the day of their pick-ups, garbage and frash, then after that, we need to be out there enforcing the Code and issuing citations. We have to start doing enforcement, because it's ridiculous. I'm telling you, it's ridiculous, OK When Igo out there on a Sunday, that we don't have pick-up on Monday, Tuesday, until Wednesday, and I see garbage all over the place, it's really disgusting, it's really disgusting, OK, and we have a lot of people in this City that come from other places or from other countries where they don't have rules, where they don't have -- they just put the garbage out there any day of the week, at any time; night, morning, afternoon; they don't care, but that's not what we're used to. I mean, we have rules. We provide services and good service because Solid Waste, it's -- we provide good -- the best services that there could be, and then on top of that, you know -- and let me tell you. Going out there and picking up is great, but if we have a person that is violating the law -- Mr. Soldevilla: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- putting garbage out there every single day, and we go every single day City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 and pick it up -- Call the County. If you live in the County, call the County and ask them to go and pick up your garbage; they charge you for it. You have to ask for a special pick-up and pay for the service. We don't charge you in the City, but if we go out there in any day of the week that is not the regular pick-up day and we pick up, we should issue a citation before we pick up or at the time that we're picking up, and we need to enforce the Code. We need to enforce this issue because it's -- I mean, it's totally out of control. I have seen it in my district, and I have seen it on other -- on my colleagues' districts. I have seen it in my colleagues' districts, OK It's really a shame what is happening out there, so I don't know, Mr. Manager, how -- what you're going to do, how you're going to do it, but I'm going to take this opportunity to instruct you to please start a promotion campaign notifying the residents of the City ofMiami what are their days of pick ups, and advising them that if they violate the law, they will pay a fine for doing so, OK. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, I totally agree, but in essence, from my experience -- Chairman Gonzalez: I mean, it's like -- you know, it's not fair that have staff in my office that -- I'm using my staff to answer residents' complaints on potholes, on broken sidewalks, on a thousand issues, and I have to have them spend the time to search for garbage and for frash, write reports, send them to my office, have my office send them to you. You know, I mean, we're duplicating services, so we need to get to the end of it. I mean, we need to stop it. One way or the other, we need to stop that. Mr. Hernandez: There's no question that we have a very good service in trash collection, and from my experience in the County, I always felt that the City should be much cleaner, and I found out that we have a serious illegal dumping problem. We have the service. We have been stepping up the educational aspect, and we'll follow it up with serious enforcement, because then once we've done our due diligence and advise the public, then we need to ensure that we have the enforcement, and we do so. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you. Years ago, I live in Hialeah. Hialeah does your frash pick-up the first Monday of every month. I'll take -- any time you want, we'll get in my car and go to Hialeah, and I'm willing to give you $20 for each pile of trash that you see on the neighborhoods. The city is clean. It's clean. One pick-up a month, and the city is clean. Why can't we do the same thing in the City ofMiami, having the service that we have? Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, that -- Chairman Gonzalez: I can't understand. Mr. Hernandez: -- is something that we have to consider because the City ofMiami, many years ago, had the same service that the City had once a week -- Mr. Soldevilla: Exactly. Mr. Hernandez: -- many years ago, and they went to a once a month, and in essence, the feedback that receive is that it's working well, and it's just as clean as when they were doing it or better than once a week, so it's something that we may have to consider. Chairman Gonzalez: And let me tell you. The reason that I'm telling you that we have to go with enforcement and citation is that people -- my staff for years now, not month, weeks, or day, years had been visiting these homes and telling these people, "Please, don't put the trash out there today because the today is not the pick-up day. The pick-up day next Thursday. You're supposed to put it out on Wednesday night," over and over and over, and guess what? They keep doing it. They just keep doing it, so you know, the only way they're going to learn is City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 enforcement. Mr. Hernandez: I agree. Chairman Gonzalez: It's the only way, OK. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, the second part is brief also of this item. It's about maintenance, actually, because of maintenance -- an employee of the City maintenance department contacted me and gave me information about what he thought was lack of maintenance, and it became a process, and it ended up with a employee talking to the media and all that, and the employee was told that he cannot communicate with me and tell me what is going on on the City's maintenance garage, so yesterday we had a meeting, and the GSA (General Services Administration) director told me that he hasn't directed, but another department of the City did told the employee that he cannot communicate with me, so I just want to put it on the record, so the Manager, who is very transparent and open, had a response for me in private, and that's all I wanted to do; for the people to know that there was a department in the City ofMiami that tell an employee that he cannot talk to me about some maintenance issue, but I just want the Manager to say something about it. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, I'll put it on the record. Basically, we discussed the item at your office, and I wanted to be very clear that when an employee discovers a problem, let's say in his routine workday, his first responsibility is to report to his supervisor through a chain of command. Once that's done, he has the right and the freedom of expression to talk to anyone, and of course, to Commissioners. There is no prohibition of any sort, as long as he advises his supervisor first. Commissioner Regalado: And that's fine, and it's fair enough. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 DISTRICT 5 COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SPENCE-JONES D5.1 07-00102 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE LITTLE HAITI CULTURAL CENTER. 07-00102 Cover Email.pdf DISCUSSED Direction by Commissioner Spence Jones to the City Attorney to meet with staff of the District 5 office to create a Little Haiti Community Oversight Board and to bring this matter back for approval at the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. D5.1. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Spence -Jones just stepped out. "[Later...]" Chairman Gonzalez: All right. D5.1. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. Yeah. D5.1. Actually, it's a discussion item regarding the progress of Little Haiti Cultural Center, and actually, it should be Park. I'd like to at least address the City Manager and, I guess, Gary, regarding the issues of the parks -- park that's happening in Little Haiti, and my concern with it at this particular time. First of all, I'd like to at least get an official update of what's hap -- what is actually happening with the park. Gary Fabrikant (Assistant Director, Capital Improvement & Transportation): All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fabrikant: On the Little Haiti Cultural campus, construction actually started on January 8, 2007, and is projected to be complete in May of 2008. The Little Haiti Soccer Park, construction work started today, and will be completed in March 2008. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. All right. Let me just say this, and the only -- there was a question that was proposed to me by the Administration as to, you know, why would I even have this, you know, on the agenda; that we should -- that I could justget briefed on it, and the reason for me putting it on the agenda is because I'm very, very concerned -- it's gone over 90 days since I've seen any dirt at all moving in Little Haiti Park, and I'm going to tell you, the folks in my community in Little Haiti and the surrounding area are very upset because they're not seeing anything happening with Little Haiti Park, and I know it was communicated to me that, "Well, you know, there's other parks that are now moving," like Grapeland, and that's great, but the people in Little Haiti have been waiting for this park for God knows how long, and there's nothing happening in the park at all. I mean, I do understand that the cultural complex is, at least, that part of it's moving, but I'm just really, really concerned -- I was given some dates in May, which is Haitian Flag Day, which was supposed to be a soft -type opening that we were going to have for the community in honor of Toussaint 'Ouverture [sic], and I'm very afraid that we're not going to even be able to meet that marker because I keep -- I'm hearing one thing, but I'm seeing something totally different, and I do have some folks from Little Haiti today that I'd at least like to have them at least come to the mike to address their concerns, because I'm getting the phone calls. I'm getting constant e-mails (electronic mail) on why, you know, this park is not City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 moving. It is the one big, you know, thing that's happening in the Little Haiti area that is, quite frankly, nothing's going on with it right now, and I'm very, very concerned about it, so I -- first, I want to know why I haven't seen anybody in 90 days on grounds there, because you gave me the dates that you said that it would be completed, which is March, I'm hearing now, 2008. Can you please tell me why there's been no one --? You know, the City Manager, the Parks director, all of us came out and did this big hoopla in Little Haiti, at Nofre Dame, and we did these big presentations, and we told the people they were going to get jobs, and we did this whole big dog and pony show, and then 90 days later, no dirt, so I want to know why there's no dirt being moved. Mary Conway (Department of Capital Improvement & Transportation): Commissioner, Mary Conway, chief of Operations. IfI could respond. We did have construction underway, Little Haiti recreation, last year that dealt with removing all the underground materials, doing some of the initial site work; the light towers were installed for the soccer field, and we had proceeded as far as we could up to a point. We did encounter a difficulty associated with the elevation of the buildings that were going to be placed on the site. That's why, over the last 90 days, you have not seen a continuation of the activities that had started last year. That issue has now been resolved, and we have spoken with RDC (Recreation Design and Construction), the contractor, who, in fact, is the same contractor working on Grapeland Park, and they have remobilized out on the site, and you should see and the community should see significantly more activities. Regarding the overall project completion because of that delay, it has slipped, but we are confident that we will have the playing field and the practice field not open for public use, but substantially complete, so -- in support of the May date for the celebration that we had discussed with you previously. There will be a lot of other construction activities continuing around that, so it won't be open for public use, but the community will see significant progress happening over the last sev -- over the next several months. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm just going to say this, Mr. Manager. My concern in all of it is -- it's almost as if you put it on your blue pages or put it on the agenda, then you get some results, you know. To hear now that, you know, it's on my agenda and they showed up yesterday, you know, and they're working, so I mean -- you know, I don't really feel that this should be the method in order to get -- Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): No. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- things done and moving within -- Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, I -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- my -- excuse me -- district, so I'm just -- I'm very, very concerned. I would like to at least, at this particular time, allow for at least one or two of the representatives from Little Haiti -- and the purpose for me putting -- making sure that I bring this out is those that are watching it at home, those that are here today because of their concerns, so they can hear it fi^om the Administration, because I want them to understand that I am supporting, 100 percent, this park happening in Little Haiti, and unfortunately, things have not been moving like you'd like for them to move, so I think that we have Sant La here, if Gepsie doesn't mind, at least addressing the Commission for a minute or so, I would greatly appreciate us giving them the respect we due -- that's due regarding that park. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, just 30 seconds. This is a very important project for me, as any other project in the CIP (Capital Improvement Programs) for any other Commissioner. I, myself get involved in minor issues whenever they become a concern; because I tell them let me know. The tapping for the water service for that park, I, myself the Manager, called Water and Sewer to expedite the process. On the issue of the elevation, I became aware that there was an issue with DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) and the elevation of City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 the building, reference the street; I got involved personally, so I'm tracking those projects. They come to me whenever there's an issue, because I want to make sure that they move forward. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I -- now that we've discovered this thing that's taking place within the park, you know, the elevation issue and DERM, does this now mean more money? Mr. Hernandez: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I just want to make sure. OK, do you mind -- can she -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- just take up one second, one second? I'd like to have Ms. Gepsie Metellus -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Please, step forward -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- state your name and address for the record. Gepsie Metellus: Thank you. Good morning. Gepsie Metellus, 5000 Biscayne Boulevard, with the Haitian Neighborhood Center Sant La. Thank you, Commissioner Spence Jones. Thank you, members of the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Manager. It's a wonderful opportunity to address you, and of course, this issue is timely, timely in the sense that of course there's wonderful development going on in the City ofMiami, and I think that the frustrations that you are hearing, Commissioner, stem from the fact that significant segments of our community feel left out of this progress in development, and so with two, I think, flagship projects, one cultural project, one park complex, you know, we had hoped to see something move a little bit faster because this has been happening now -- if my memory serves me right, it's been on the plans now for almost ten years, all right, and of course, it's moved forward, and we thought that we'd reach a point where we'd see some significant movement, and of course, you know, in our community, people often say that when you're not at the table, you're on the menu, so I just want to remind you all that we also, in the Haitian community in the City ofMiami, want to be part of this wonderful progress and want to urge you to keep this in mind as you decide on what projects move forward, what projects need to be expedited, what projects will be built, and think of what needs to happen so that the development seems equitable so that the progress seems to be beneficial to -- well, not "seems to be" -- is beneficial and is equitable, and it's shared by all members of the community, and so I appreciate your concern about this. I appreciate all of your concerns about this, and I really do hope that we see some progress so that, in six months, we don't hear that well, DERM discovered something else that will set us back another three months, and of course, unfortunately, it will just appear to be many more excuses after excuses. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you, Gepsie. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Metellus: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Are we -- we're still on D5.1, right? City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Thank you so much, Gepsie. I just want to just add that I'm going to ask and request that the City Attorney please -- thank you so much for coming, Gepsie -- I want to ask that the City Attorney please get with, hopefully, somebody from our office. At one time this was Commissioner Teele's baby, this whole Little Haiti Park, and he had created an advisory board to assist with the development of the park, but I'd like to at least direct the City Attorney to work along with our office to bring back, for the first meeting in February, a Little Haiti oversight board, community oversight board, to make sure key projects that are happening in Little Haiti move and they happen, and that the people of -- that work for the City are accountable to the residents that we made promises to, so I just wanted to make sure I put that on the record. D5.2 07-00103 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FOR THE REHAB OF SIX UNITS TO MEET THE HOUSING CRISIS IN THE CITY. 07-00103 Cover Email.pdf DISCUSSED Commissioner Spence -Jones: And the next one is D5.2, which is -- again, I thank the Commissioners for their support. We did have a wonderful press conference last week that pulled together several different organizations, PULSE (People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality), NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and Homeless Trust, regarding the issue of of course, you know, what we call "Shantytown," and other iss -- homeless issues that are going on within my district. This discussion is really regarding the transfer of property for the rehab of the six units to meet the housing crises in the City. You know, last time we did the four units, and we're well on our way with those, and hopefully, the item coming up later will -- we will discuss that. This is six other units that, again, are City -owned units that are boarded up, that are one/ones, that can definitely be used that are not being utilized at all. I believe Commissioner Regalado toured this site with me also. This is something that can be made available. I think the Manager and Barbara Rodriguez [sic] -- I had asked in this particular meeting for Commissioner Gomez -- I mean Barbara Gomez to direct -- Gomez -- to come back and give me an update at least on the six units, and where we are with those. Barbara Gomez: Barbara Gomez, director of Community Development. Basically, we are doing an assessment, not only of these six vacant units in the City ofMiami, but we have obtained from the Liberty City Trust all of the properties that are being transferred to the City, and we are doing an assessment, how much they're going to cost, and we will be back to this City Commission with the proper funding and the proper estimate to get all of these housing units back on the rent rolls. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So for the six units, do we have an idea of what we're -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: No. The -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- have you sent the inspector out to --? Ms. Gomez: -- inspectors are currently doing an assessment of the building. We should have it completed, hopefully, by the February 8 Commission, but definitely by February -- by the second Commission in February. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. I'm sorry, Chairman. I'm almost done. I just want to City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 make sure the four units that we have promised -- and, again, at the press conference, it was stated that they would be completed in 90 days. Are we still on target with those? Ms. Gomez: We are on schedule. Today we are doing the request for proposal for a general contractor. As we speak, the inspectors are out there requesting general contractors to bid on the property. We are working with Better Way, and we do have an item today at the City Commission making the transfer of the property. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Thank you. I'm just going to -- Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): And Commissioner, we'll need -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Hernandez: -- your support on the item, on PH3, when we get to it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No problem, and I just want to add, I am -- on my blue pages, tonight before we leave, I'm going to also instruct that we put together a task force that is called Neighborhood -- Neighbors Uniting for Housing Task Force that will be head up -- headed up by the -- by PULSE and several other organizations to come back with recommendations on what we need to do regarding the homeless issue and the housing issue that's happening within my district. Thank you. "[Later...]" Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I know you did -- I just wanted to just at least be able to -- I remember I mentioned earlier -- I just want to give you -- it's not really a -- it's just for the resolution for this housing taskforce for the Umoja Village issue, the shantytown issue. It's just a taskforce that we're putting in place to address it. Chairman Gonzalez: You want to pass this now? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have -- OK, go ahead before -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: This is a resolution of the City ofMiami Commission authorizing the City Manager to create the Neighbors United for Housing Taskforce to address the crises surrounding the need for affordable housing and the rise in homelessness in District 5. So move. Can I get a second, please? Chairman Gonzalez: Motion. We need a second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Pardon me? Motion carries. 07-00103a RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 CITY MANAGER TO CREATE THE "NEIGHBORS UNITED FOR HOUSING TASK FORCE," AS STATED HEREIN, TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS SURROUNDING THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE RISE IN HOMELESSNESS IN DISTRICT 5. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-07-0058 City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 10:30 A.M. PH.1 07-00089 Department of Community Development PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESERVING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 MILLION, FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY'S") AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, FOR USE ON THE MIXED -USE, MIXED -INCOME BUILDING TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE VACANT CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400-430 SOUTHWEST 8TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 07-00089 Legislation.pdf 07-00089 Summary Form.pdf Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-07-0052 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PH.1 Barbara Gomez (Director, Community Development): PH.1, we're requesting approval of -- The Little Havana Advisory Board has requested from this City Commission to put aside $1 million from the Affordable Housing Trust. As you know, there is an RFP (Request for Proposals) going on right now for a property that was owned by the City, known as Teafro Marti, located at 400 Southwest 8th Avenue. We're in the process of getting proposal to determine what are we going to build there, so right now all they're asking is to set aside those dollars so when we do get the RFP, and we see the project, that if there is a need for those dollars, we would have access to those dollars, and we feel that it's appropriate, and we would like to get your approval on this recommendation. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Is there -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: -- a motion? We have a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: And there is a second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I do just have a little -- have a comment. Chairman Gonzalez: Any discussion? Yes, Commissioner -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Spence -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Again, you know, I understand that District 5 again, before I got here, has sucked up a lot of the resources and has -- unfortunately, has not been -- has not come -- has not produced any real products, but hopefully, you'll begin to see the difference now with City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 new leadership, butl do want to say, I know that it is time for Little Havana and the other areas to begin getting the support, and I know that since most of the affordable housing projects or the tax credits really that have been won -- I believe, if I'm not mistaken, Barbara, we have had at least how many this year I've won? Ms. Gomez: This year alone, all of them were in your district, except one in District 1 -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right -- Ms. Gomez: -- so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so -- Ms. Gomez: -- all tax credit deals that were awarded in 2006 are in District 5. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Which means it's about how many units will be coming to District Ms. Gomez: Eight hundred units. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Eight hundred new units, correct? Ms. Gomez: Eight hundred new units, which there is an RFP right now to with the gap of financing that they have in those projects. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and then -- the whole idea is that these low-income rentals, too, correct? Ms. Gomez: They're all very low. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Gomez: Some go as low as 30 percent of medium income. help those developer are all going to be Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so I support you 100 percent, Commissioner Sanchez, and I do understand what your concern is, and probably some of the other Commissioners' concerns would be, you know, at the end of the day -- as you know, a lot of those tax credit projects that we have been winning from a state perspective -- again, we don't make that decision; the State makes the determination as to which projects are funded, but the reality is I do understand how important it is to make sure we try to spread it round as much as possible. I am thankful and blessed, though, because as you know, my community's also been very wroth with not having enough housing, and all the vacant lots that have in my district, so at least we're well on our way with seeing some progress being made, so I just want to let you know that do support you on what you're frying to do, and just know that you can count on me when you're trying to build housing in your district. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. I know we're running a little behind on the schedule here on the agenda, but let me just say that Little Havana -- and you're about to start your homeowner association -- your affordable housing trust, or your board, or whatever you may. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: I decided to do a board because I didn't -- I felt that every money should have gone to the people that want to accomplish the American Dream. In other words, these are volunteer people, professional people in our community that give up their time and effort away from their family and their business to make sure that every dollar goes out there. The people that are working, making $8 an hour, saving every penny they can working odd jobs to qualify to be able, through the assistance that they get, to accomplish the American Dream, and this -- the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board, I just want to state for the record that we had more than five dozen families that have been able to accomplish the American Dream. I believe we have like three other dozens that are waiting for their projects to continue, but here's the biggest problem thatl have, and I think that we need to learn from our experiences -- because we can't discuss this unless we're out in the public. I can't sit down with you and give you advice based on what you're going to be going through. Property today is too expensive, and therefore, the window of opportunity is very hard for us to create affordable housing. Ms. Gomez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It is my number one priority. It is our number one crisis in our City, but you can't unless you own the property, and then you have to be very creative to fry to maximize your dollars. In other words, you do that by partnering up with the private sector to try to maximize your dollar. In other words, this item that's in front of you today -- You all know the property. It's Teatro Marti. It is City property. I think tomorrow the RFLI (Request for Letters of Interest) goes out. Ms. Gomez: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It went out a long time ago. For whatever reason, nobody picked it up, and now we have a golden opportunity for us to create possibly 60 units affordable and workforce housing with this money, so I want to thank the Commission for supporting us on this issue. I know that my window will soon fade out, and you will have an opportunity, Commissioner Gonzalez, in your district, to accomplish affordable housing, but once again, I just wanted to state for the record that, you know, the success is to partner up with the private sector and maximize your dollars. You just can't take your money and put it in a place, because at the end of the day, you're only going to be getting maybe 80 families when, if you maximize, you might be able to get 240, if you're lucky, so I just wanted to state that, and want to thank the Commission for their support on this resolution for the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And Ms. Gomez, can I just also -- if you can just put on the record. I know one of the biggest concerns that has come up, especially with projects that I've had to even bring in front of the Commission regarding the Affordable Housing Trust itself -- I just want to at least get some sort of time frames from you -- Ms. Gomez: February -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- because -- Ms. Gomez: -- 8. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so just let them -- so they know -- Ms. Gomez: February 8 we'll bring up the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Trust. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 PH.2 07-00091 Department of Community Development PH.3 07-00116 Department of Community Development The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. I see no opposition. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY, WITH PARCEL REVERTER PROVISIONS, ONE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OWNED VACANT PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1614 NORTHWEST 1 COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, TO OVERTOWN CONDOMINIUM, LLC, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), FOR SAID PURPOSE. 07-00091 Legislation.pdf 07-00091 Exhibit.pdf 07-00091 Summary Form.pdf DEFERRED RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO: (A) CONVEY, WITH PARCEL REVERTER PROVISIONS, EIGHT (8) CITY OF MIAMI OWNED PARCELS OF LAND DIRECTLY TO THE DEVELOPERS, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ELIGIBLE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PERSONS, AND (B) AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS, IN THE FORM OF A TWENTY (20) YEAR FORGIVABLE LOAN, TO BETTER WAY OF MIAMI, INC., FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 07-00116 Legislation .pdf 07-00116 Exhibit .pdf 07-00116 Summary Form.pdf Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sarnoff R-07-0053 Chairman Gonzalez: PH.2. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PH.2 -- Barbara Gomez (Director, Community Development): PH.2, we're withdrawing that item. Chairman Gonzalez: PH.3. City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Gomez: PH3. As I said earlier, we've been in negotiations with the Liberty City Trust in order to assess all of their properties and to determine what can we do with them to get them into construction right away. We are requesting the conveyance of eight parcels of land, three of which -- 290 Northwest 61 Street, 280 Northwest 61 Sfreet, and 1272 Northwest 61 Sfreet to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami; 1405 Northwest 60 Street to Better Way ofMiami; 1461 Northwest 60 Street and 6005 Northwest 15th Avenue to Palmetto Homes ofMiami, Incorporated; 5852 Northwest 13th Avenue and 5858 Northwest 13th Avenue to Foster Consfruction of South Florida. They will all have restricted covenant, which means that they have to start construction within 6 months from the date of conveyance. We're also requesting that on the one of Better Way, they be awarded $150, 000 from the Affordable Housing Trust in the form of a 20 year forgivable loan, which basically, if the property continue to be affordable, the loan will be forgiven after 20 years, and again, I will answer any question. There are representative here -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me -- Ms. Gomez: -- from -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- tell you. I'll be in full support of this, but the six month, unless they're going to build cookie -cutters -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: --I believe it's unrealistic. Ms. Gomez: The only one -- Chairman Gonzalez: There will -- Ms. Gomez: -- that will take more -- that will take around that will be Habitat because it's the only time that Habitat will be doing a building. Palmetto Homes, as you know, they have built 20 houses for the City. Chairman Gonzalez: Are they going to -- Ms. Gomez: They have cookie -cutters -- Chairman Gonzalez: It's going to be cookie -cutters? Ms. Gomez: -- and Foster Consfruction have cookie -cutters -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Then I have no -- Ms. Gomez: -- and Better Way, that's the one we made a commitment to -- Chairman Gonzalez: Then I -- Ms. Gomez: -- have it -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- have no problem -- Ms. Gomez: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- but my problem is, you know, if you have to do drawings and you have City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 to submit them for permitting -- Ms. Gomez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and you have to -- Ms. Gomez: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- there's no way that you can do that in six months. Ms. Gomez: The only one that we're working on, because this is the first time that they will be doing a building, is Habitat. The others, they have cookie -cutters, and Better Way, we have a construction -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- Ms. Gomez: -- completion in 90 days. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- Mr. Chairman, did -- would you suggest that we give them, what, a year? Chairman Gonzalez: I suggest -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Because you -- I mean, you've done this a lot longer than I have. Chairman Gonzalez: -- that you give them one year, and then, you know, you revise it after a year; that will give -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- them plenty of time because they have to go through the process of having drawings, architectural, engineering, and then submit for permit; they're going to have revision on their plans, you know, so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Gomez: OK, so you -- we -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chair -- Ms. Gomez: -- say six months for everybody, except -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: --I -- Ms. Gomez: -- Habitat, a year. Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no, no. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: He's saying all of them. Chairman Gonzalez: The -- Ms. Gomez: OK. City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: -- it's up to the district Commissioner, but if the others are going to build cookie -cutters, they -- Ms. Gomez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- have save -- Ms. Gomez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- half of the time, but you know, if you want -- Ms. Gomez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to give them a year -- I believe it should be -- you should give them up to a year. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I will -- Ms. Gomez: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- make the motion, with the amendment for one year. Ms. Gomez: One year, OK Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: And we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Ms. Gomez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you so much, Barbara. [Later... Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I -- if you -- just two seconds. Ms. Beth Lang from Better Way. She just wanted to say one thing real fast, if you don't mind? Chairman Gonzalez: Sure. Beth Lang: Hi. Beth Lang, executive director of Better Way, at 800 Northwest 28th Street. I City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 want to thank this Commission, and particularly, Commissioner Spence -Jones, for your long-time support and your trust, and I'm proud to say that Better Way has not only made good use of the property, but kept it in excellent, shape, and has renovated and done a great job with everything that you have given to us. You are all most forward -looking, and I am truly appreciative because this is fruly a partnership. Thank you so much. Thank you -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you, Ms. Lang. Ms. Lang: -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. DI.1 has been deferred. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): That was deferred. Chairman Gonzalez: It was deferred. City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 ORDINANCE - FIRST READING FR.1 07-00069 ORDINANCE First Reading Department of AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REPEALING CHAPTER Public Works 54, "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS," ARTICLE III, "BUS BENCHES," SECTION 54-86 THROUGH SECTION 54-94 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Votes: 07-00069 Legislation SR/FR .pdf 07-00069 Summary Form SR/FR.pdf 07-00069 2006 Florida Statutes SR/FR.pdf Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chairman Gonzalez: FR.1. Stephanie Grindell: Stephanie Grindell, director of Public Works. FR.1 is an ordinance repealing City Code Chapter 54, entitled "Bus Benches." This -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Is there a motion on -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: -- FR.1? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Has to be read. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. -- Mr. Fernandez: Has to be read. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's an ordinance on first reading. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's an ordinance. Go ahead, Mr. City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Madam City Clerk, we had a motion, and we had a second, and we need to do the roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance is passed on first reading, 5/0. City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 DISCUSSION ITEM DI.1 07-00070 DISCUSSION ITEM Office of Strategic DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE INTER -GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES Planning, WITH MIAMI DADE COUNTY. Budgeting, and Performance 07-00070 Summary Form.pdf DEFERRED City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 PART B Chairman Gonzalez: All right. It's almost 12 o'clock. I think that we should break, right -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Take it to 12:30. Chairman Gonzalez: -- or you want to take a couple of items? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, why don't we do something? I think there's some -- Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- there're some PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that are going to be deferred. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. I need to announce those that are going to be deferred by the Administration -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- some that, it's my understanding, are being asked to be deferred by Commissioner Sarnoff, and then also there are members -- applicants in the audience who would like to request the City Commission continuance on some of their items, and if you can dispose of all of those administrative matters before you break for lunch, then when you come back from lunch, you can get into the meat and substance of it. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, Madam Clerk, PZ.4, 14, 21 -- Chairman Gonzalez: Slowly, slowly, slowly. Slow, slow. Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Commissioner Regalado: PZ -- Mr. Fernandez: 4 -- Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.4. Mr. Fernandez: -- 14 -- Chairman Gonzalez: 14. Mr. Fernandez: -- 21. Commissioner Sarnoff Wait, wait, wait. Chairman Gonzalez: 21. Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Mr. Fernandez: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff 14 is -- City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: What about -- is PZ.18 not being deferred now? OK. Commissioner Regalado: PZ.14. Mr. Fernandez: PZ -- Chairman Gonzalez: 4 -- Mr. Fernandez: -- 14. Chairman Gonzalez: --14, and 21. Mr. Fernandez: 4, 14, 21 -- Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 18 is not being pulled? Mr. Fernandez: Well, just -- let me do my -- we'll come back to those in a minute. -- and 36, those are being deferred to your February meeting. My understanding is that PZ.14 is being deferred to your March 22 meeting, so 4, 21, and 36, the Administration is moving those to your February meeting. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: PZ.14 is to the March 22 meeting. Furthermore, items 5 and 29, it is my understanding that Commissioner Sarnoff, because he has not yet received all the information that he needs to duly deliberate on these items, that he is requesting, -- and we've contacted the applicants and the applicants have no problem with items 5 and 29, likewise, being continued to the February -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Well, it's up to Commissioner Sarnoff. My -- Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah. I'm not -- Mr. Fernandez: -- understanding from his staff is that 5 and 29 were going to be requested by him to be continued. Commissioner Sarnoff Let's go through with 29. I don't believe we're pulling 29. Mr. Fernandez: OK. Lucia Dougherty: You believe what? Mr. Fernandez: Just 29? Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah. I think the other one -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: 5. You're going to pull 29 and keep 5? City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff I'm sorry. I was wrong. We're going to keep 5 and pull 29. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Keep 5 and -- Mr. Fernandez: Oh, all right, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff As soon as I find the documents for 29, we'll have it. Mr. Fernandez: Fine, so -- Ms. Dougherty: Commissioner Sarnoff -- Mr. Fernandez: -- then 5 is -- Ms. Dougherty: -- can I just ask a question? Mr. Fernandez: Let -- allow me to conclude -- Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Mr. Fernandez: -- please. All right, so 29 is being then continued to the February meeting of P&Z. Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Mr. Fernandez: Any other item is subject to a request by the applicant for a continuance, or if any Commissioner would like to have any other item deferred for -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Any -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Requests? Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Manager -- Ms. Dougherty: I have a question for Commissioner Sarnoff. Chairman Gonzalez: -- that's it? Ms. Dougherty: Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Dougherty: On the -- item number 29, which is the Omni, we don't have any problem with continuing it, but would you like to see a presentation of it because the architect is here today. These are people from out of town, and if, at that point, you want to continue, we don't have a problem with that, but this is an opportunity for you to see the project and see -- Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah, if somebody traveled from out of town, I don't mind seeing it -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff -- but I probably would not base a decision -- Ms. Dougherty: That's fine -- City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff -- OK. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me. I need your name -- Ms. Dougherty: -- but -- so we don't need to continue that right now until you decide? Commissioner Sarnoff That's fine. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Ms. Burns: I need your name for the record, please. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Mr. Hernandez: -- 22 is also off. That's a companion to 21. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 22. Chairman Gonzalez: That's also continue -- defer? Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Director): Yes. Mr. Hernandez: Yes, to February 22. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Did you want to continue any items or defer? Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with the law firm ofBilzin Sumberg. Yes, I would like to continue item 33 and 34, Palomo Holdings. We have conferred with the opposition. Mr. Luis Herrera is here today representing the opposition, and they have agreed to support this request for a continuance. Ms. Slazyk: To a date certain. Commissioner Regalado: What is that -- Ms. Garcia -Toledo: To a date certain. Commissioner Regalado: -- 33? Commissioner Sarnoff 33 and 34. Chairman Gonzalez: 33 and 34. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: 33 and 34 to a date certain of February 22. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Good morning. Ricardo Ruiz: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Ricardo Ruiz, 3150 Southwest 15th Street. I'm here representing item PZ.25 and 26, and we wish to request a continuance. We've sent in a covenant to the departments. They haven't been able to review the covenant, so we would like a deferral so they could do that. Ms. Slazyk: Date certain. Chairman Gonzalez: 25 and 26. Mr. Ruiz: Whenever you -- Chairman Gonzalez: That will -- Ms. Slazyk: February. Mr. Ruiz: February is fine. Chairman Gonzalez: February 22. All right. Any other items? All right. Let me -- for the people that are here for the Planning and Zoning agenda, as you see, we -- they put 20 -- 38 items on this agenda, something that is unrealistic, something that we will never be able to go through, so -- and we have an item that is time certain at 5 o'clock that is going to take, to my best guess, at least four or five hours, so what we're going to do is when we come back from lunch, we're going to start taking Planning and Zoning items until 4:45. At 4:45 I'm going to call a recess of 15 minutes to get set up for the Mercy Hospital project, which is time certain at 5 o'clock. Any items that have not been heard at 4:45 will be continued, and it will be continued for the February 22 date, and Mr. City Manager, you should take into consideration, and Lourdes and I don't know where Teresita Fernandez is, that so far we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve items for February 22, so we almost have an agenda from today from [sic] February 22, and let me tell you, I mean, we can play all kind of games here, but if you keep loading these agendas with 30 items, 38 items, 42 items, what is going to happen is that eventually some of the items, like we're doing today, 14, 15, 16, 17 items are going to be deferred for the next agenda, so we need to be realistic on what we're doing. I mean, you know, it's your job. You need to be -- I'm going to be doing my job. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: My job is to run this City Commission, to try to get rid of this agenda at every meeting, but I'm not going to let this drive my blood pressure up. Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, can we do --? Chairman Gonzalez: I'm just going to handle it the best I can -- Mr. Hernandez: We -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- within my power. Mr. Hernandez: -- as we discussed with you, Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Regalado: Can I --? City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Hernandez: -- I think it would be important if we -- we're working on setting up alternate dates for additional meetings to be able to catch up on Zoning, and we'll be forwarding that to your office for your review and approval. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: I mean, I don't -- Chairman Gonzalez: You know -- Commissioner Regalado: -- mind if you call for a special meeting of Zoning -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah -- Commissioner Regalado: -- some time in the afternoon. Chairman Gonzalez: -- but you know, what really -- what's -- Commissioner Regalado: We can catch up with some of the items. I mean -- Chairman Gonzalez: What is really -- Commissioner Regalado: -- two or three hours. Chairman Gonzalez: -- upsetting is that, you know, you schedule these 38 items for today, and also the Mercy Hospital item, which we know is controversial. You know, we're now going to have 200 people here for that item, and if you would have consulted me -- because after all, I am the Chairman. I'm running the meeting. IfI would've been consulted, I would've had said let's set up a special meeting for the Mercy Hospital one day, at 2 o'clock. We have an entire afternoon and part of the night to run a smooth meeting, you know, and then we would have had taken this agenda today, and then the Mercy at another date, but you know what? You know, you just put it in there without consulting with anybody, and let me tell you. As soon as the Mayor is back, I'm going to talk to the Mayor, because either I run the show, or I don't run the show. If I'm not going to run the show, listen, no problem, you know; let somebody else run it, butt have --I believe that have a responsibility to get this agenda done. I have the responsibility to make sure that afford time to the citizens to speak on the items, and have to afford enough time to the attorneys to do their presentations, so you know, you need to cooperate with me, but can tell you. While I'm the Chairman, I'm going to exercise my powers as the Chairman to control the agenda and to control the meeting, all right, so -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: -- thank you very much. "[Later...]" Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I'm going to be taking the last two items before taking the Mercy Hospital project, or the Mercy property, or whatever you want to call it, so for those that are here for any other items, the rest of the agenda will be continued until February 22, and then the Manager and I will have to sit down and work through this agenda because we're deferring a complete agenda today. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, that's why you're my Chair. You make -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK -- City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- sure you take care of that. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so -- Commissioner Regalado: Do you want to do a special meeting before the --? Chairman Gonzalez: I guess we'll have to decide that afterwards, and then they will have to announce, you know, everything. I mean -- Commissioner Regalado: No, but if you decided now -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- but I can't decide it now. Commissioner Regalado: -- we can -- oh, you can't. OK Chairman Gonzalez: I don't want to decide it now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wait. No, no, not -- Chairman Gonzalez: You know, I need to sit down with the Manager and show him, you know, what they've been doing -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Waste. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and -- you know, we need to find a long-term solution, not an immediate solution, because otherwise, they will continue to do this every single meeting. All right. Frank Castaneda (Chief of Staff Office of Commissioner Gonzalez): Commissioner, I'm sorry. They wanted clarification, whether it is the first meeting in March or the first Zoning meeting in March, which is the second meeting? Chairman Gonzalez: It's the first meeting -- Commissioner Regalado: No. He said the first meeting in March. Chairman Gonzalez: -- in March, the regular Commission meeting in March. If it would have been the Planning and Zoning, I would have said the second meeting in March, but it is the first meeting in March, which is the regular Commission meeting in March. "[Later...]" Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so now we are going to break for lunch -- Ms. Burns: Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we should be back at 2:30 -- Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so we start early. Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk. City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Burns: For the record, I'd just like to go over what our records show as far as the deferrals, just to make sure we're on the same page. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Burns: We show PZ.4 being deferred to February 22, PZ.14 -- Chairman Gonzalez: To March. Ms. Burns: -- to March 22. Chairman Gonzalez: 21 and 36 to February. Ms. Burns: To February. Chairman Gonzalez: 29 to February, 22 to February. Ms. Burns: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: 33, 34 to February -- Ms. Burns: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and 25 and 26 to February. Ms. Burns: Correct, and then PZ.36? Chairman Gonzalez: And PZ.36 to February also. Ms. Burns: OK. Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Burns: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. All right. We're going to have -- we're going to adjourn for lunch, and we'll be back at 2:30. "[Later...]" Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Attorney, would you please state the procedures for the portion of the Planning and Zoning agenda? Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Yes, sir. PZ (Planning & Zoning) items shall proceed as follows. Before the PZ agenda is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn by the City Clerk. Staffwill briefly describe the request, whether an appeal, special exception, vacation, text amendment, zoning change, land use change or MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) and make its recommendation. The appellant or petitioner will then present the request. The appellee, if applicable, will present its position. Members of the public will be permitted to speak on certain petitions. The petitioner may ask questions of staff, the appellant or petitioner will be permitted to make final comments. City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Chiaro: The City Clerk can swear in -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Chiaro: -- those -- Chairman Gonzalez: We need to establish some order for this meeting this afternoon because, as we all know, the agenda is pretty heavy. I will be allowing equal time -- amount of time to each attorney on both sides, attorneys that are for and attorneys that are against, and to the general public, we're going to be allowing two minutes per speaker, so I think it's a way that everybody have the opportunity to come up to the podium and express their position, if they're in favor or against each of these items, and also the attorneys will have whatever time they need to present their cases, and we will give equal amount of time to both sides on the attorneys. All right. Having said that, we need to swear in the witnesses. Everyone that is going to be testifying in any of these Planning and Zoning items, please stand up to be sworn in. Ms. Burns: Would you please raise your right hand and repeat --? And don't repeat after me, but -- The Assistant City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Burns: Thank you. Please be seated. PZ.1 05-00078xt RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, REQUIRING CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, TO ALLOW SURFACE PARKING, WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 6789 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ZONED "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, "SD-9" BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT AND "SD-12" BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A." 05-00078xt Analysis.pdf 05-00078xt Zoning Map.pdf 05-00078xt Aerial Map.pdf 05-00078xt Extension Letter & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00078xt Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00078xt Plans.pdf 05-00078xt Exhibit A.pdf 05-00078xt Extension Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00078xt CC Legislation.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 6789 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire, on behalf of Balans Biscayne Properties, LC City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the extension of time and approval with conditions* of the Special Exception. *See supporting documents. PURPOSE: This will allow an extension of time for a previously approved Special Exception requiring City Commission approval for surface parking for a restaurant and multifamily units. NOTE: This file was publicly noticed as File ID 05-00078b, but later changed to File ID 05-00078xt to reflect the extension. Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-07-0054 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let's take the first item, PZ.1. Good afternoon. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. PZ.1 is an extension of time for a special exception. As you know, SD-12, when they come with surface parking, they have to come in front of you, and this part is the one to do the ordinance authorizing that. Any extension of time, it has to be approved by you, and that we're recommending approval. Planning have no issues in the continuance of the item. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Lucia. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. This is a project that is on Biscayne Boulevard and 67th Street. With me is Ilija Mosscrop, and it's for Balans Restaurant. Balans is a London -based restaurant that also has one in Lincoln Road in Miami Beach and will be locating here. The proposal is actually for this area here, the special exception, to provide surface parking lot to serve the restaurant. As you can see, it's a very modest building. It's only three stories with one -- ten residential units and a ground floor restaurant. We have already submitted for our building permit. This is a request to extend the time for getting a building permit because we are currently in WASA (Water and Sewage Authority), meaning Water and Sewer board, trying to get our permits. Originally, the building -- here's the parking lot -- was only this part here. We've now acquired the service station on the other side, so the restaurant is actually -- has the entire frontage from 67th to 68th Street. With that we would ask for an extension of time to secure the building permit. Commissioner Sarnoff When did you get your building permit? Ms. Dougherty: No, we haven't. That's why we're asking for this extension. Commissioner Sarnoff When did you get your -- you asked for your -- was it a variance you got? Ms. Dougherty: No. It was a special exception. Commissioner Sarnoff Overlay. I'm sorry. City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: January 28, 2006. Commissioner Sarnoff So approximately a year ago today? Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Sarnoff What have you done in that year to move forward in your plans? Ilija Mosscrop: Ilija Mosscrop, with the offices ofMosscropAssociates. I'm the architect. What happened was at the time we got the granted -- at the time we were granted the SD-12 overlay for this portion, my client had not yet purchased this piece of property here. Shortly after obtaining the SD-12 overlay, my client acquired the southern piece of property, on which used to sit a Kwik Stop convenience market, and so between January and August, we redesigned the whole building because it basically almost doubled in size -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Mr. Mosscrop: -- and it just took that long to do the redesigns, get the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board approvals, and do the construction documents, which were then submitted to the Building Department in August of this year. Commissioner Sarnoff That was the convenient [sic] store that you had said at some public meetings that you would like to acquire for surface parking -- Mr. Mosscrop: Correct. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and now you've decided not to use that for surface parking, but instead you've decided to use it for further development of your restaurant and to move your surface parking closer into the neighborhood. Mr. Mosscrop: No, no, no. If you look at this site plan here -- in fact, this is a clearer -- I'll show you. OK. This is an enlargement of the overall site plan. In orange you can see the Kwik Stop store, where it used to be, which is now -- which we are proposing to put more surface parking. As part of the -- Commissioner Sarnoff How many parking spaces? Ms. Dougherty: Let me just say something to you. The City staff and your regulations do not permit a parking lot -- an exposed parking on Biscayne Boulevard, on the SD-9 regulations. Commissioner Sarnoff So there was no way they could have had a parking lot -- Mr. Mosscrop: No. Commissioner Sarnoff -- on Biscayne Boulevard. Mr. Mosscrop: No. Correct. Yeah, we can't do -- the City mandate -- Commissioner Sarnoff Without -- I'm sorry. Could Lucia answer that question? Ms. Dougherty: You cannot have a parking lot on Biscayne Boulevard -- fronting on Biscayne -- Commissioner Sarnoff Period. Ms. Dougherty: Period -- City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- and the other thing, too, is we do have historic and preservation -- Environmental Preservation district approval, as well as the Urban Development Review Board approval. Chairman Gonzalez: That's it? Ms. Dougherty: That is it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. It's -- this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on this item, please come forward. Elvis Cruz: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, here on behalf of the Morningside Civic Association. Chairman Gonzalez: Are you here today as an attorney representing this organization or as a resident? Mr. Cruz: I'm a resident. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, because I don't know if you were here when I said I was going to give equal amount of time to each attorney representing both sides that are representing groups and two minutes to each person -- each speaker. Mr. Cruz: I should be OK with two minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, sir. Mr. Cruz: I wanted to give some important background information. First of all, the -- on the screen, the area colored in blue is the interior square footage of the proposed restaurant as it was originally proposed on July 28 to the City Commission. There is a gigantic loophole in the Zoning Code, in that parking is determined by the square feet of interior space. That interior, if you count the little seats, has about 34 seats. However, the pink -shaded portion would be seating -- outdoor seating for a total of about 150 to 200 seats for the restaurant, so they're proposing a 200-seat restaurant with 17 parking spaces. Now let me make it clear. We're all in favor of the restaurant. However, we're opposed to using SD-12 to put parking into an R-1 neighborhood, and Commissioner Sarnoff is correct. Oh, by the way, here on this screen you can see, the green is the R-1, the blue is the SD-9, and Commissioner Sarnoff is correct. This Kwik Stop convenience store you see, at the time we proposed that they buy that property and use that for parking, and we were told it wasn't for sale. Now it has been sold, or it has been purchased, and it's not being used for parking; granted SD-9 does say that, but here we are at the fork in the road. Is it a better public policy to move parking into a historic district that's zoned R-1 or to make an exception to allow the parking to be on Biscayne Boulevard? And by coincidence, there's a later -- Planning and Zoning item later today, just three blocks from there, where the Planning Department recommends denial of an SD-12 in an R-3 area, an R-3 area. This is R-1, and it's a historic district, so I would recommend that you please make whatever changes need to be made so that they can keep their parking on Biscayne and not in an R-1 historic neighborhood. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none -- Ms. Dougherty: The only thing I would like to point out is that the -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- merits of the case is not at issue today, but simply should an extension of time be granted in which to pull a building permit? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is -- and I understand that we are not -- we're dealing only with an extension, but a proposal has been made, which, to me, makes sense. Regardless of what the City says on Biscayne Boulevard, the logical thing will be to have parking on Biscayne Boulevard for the restaurant. Is that something that can be done by legislation? And the reason is it is safer, more visible, and going into an R-1 or residential area, it would create problems for the customers and for the resident, but having the parking in Biscayne Boulevard, a lit parking, something that is -- it's been done. I've seen it like Biscayne Boulevard, when -- if you go to Houston in Biscayne Boulevard, parking is there, so I don't know about them -- the case -- I'm not talking about the case itself but I'm talking about the solutions, and if, by legislation, things can be changed, well, things can be changed, and everything doesn't have to be strict if it's a policy decision, so I don't know why would this mean for the restaurant, or I don't know what would this mean for the business itself. What I'm saying is that when we're offer -- we're being offer several choices, and one of the choice is to change legislation, to make an exception for something that makes sense, it worth looking into. Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, you know, I do recognize this is in Commissioner Sarnoffs disfrict, so I'm really going to defer to what he wants to have happen there. I just have a quick question, and I do know that on the Biscayne Boulevard, at least in that particular area, between 54th and about 79th, there are a lot of little restaurants that are popping up on Biscayne Boulevard. It's actually kind of great to have something happen really nice over there. It's been a long time since we've seen anything nice going on, and to see a restaurant happening like that is -- I think is awesome. My question, though, was, at least between -- I know Commissioner Regalado mentioned Houston's, but quite frankly, that's really closer to Aventura, but my question was, are there any existing parking lots already on --? Because I don't really recall. Most of the restaurants that are there, little cafes, mostly all the parking is behind those restaurants. I'll use, for example -- can I just finish? -- the Starbucks, and I go in your district all the time because I don't have one in my district yet, but I'm working on getting one, and the parking is behind the building. Uvas, you know, same thing, you know. Dogged -- the dog -- hot -- my favorite hot -- I always eat in your district, so most of the parking is behind it, which abuts a residential area, so I'm not -- and I think that was done, it seems like, by design for some reason. Cafe 71, which is bistros, is also the parking is behind it, which it abuts a residential area, so my question is -- I don't know if that's been -- it seems as though it's been planned that way for a purpose to keep -- to create a pedestrian friendly, kind of like, I guess, walking area to, you know, get people to go from one restaurant to the next, and I'm just going to tell you, even though your district is finally cleaning up from prostitution and everything else that was happening on Biscayne between that particular area, having more eyes on the streets and not having parking lots to have to dodge through, it just seems to me it's just something that we need to consider because it seems as though they're creating, you know, at least some sort of you know, walk -ability from one spot to the next, so I just wanted to give you -- again, I'm deferring to you because it is your disfrict, and I respect district Commissioner in whatever he decides to do, butl do -- I am aware of the area because it's not too far from my home. Mr. Mosscrop: May I say -- City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff No. I -- first of all, I appreciate your comment. I appreciate Commissioner Regalado's comment, and I guess this is going to be one of the first times I'll be speaking on an Upper Eastside issue. Whenever there is going to be a consideration of a business versus residents, especially R-1, the business will yield to the residents because the residents are going to be primary versus the business, so I also think about -- when I just pulled into the Quizno's, and I know there was parking right in front there, I think there are about 48 units that I could park at, so I hear that I should not have been able to pull in there, but somehow I was able to pull in there, and there's a parking lot there, and nobody wants to see parking lots on Biscayne Boulevard. However, you can certainly line that parking lot with any number of artifices that would make it look like an attractive parking lot. On the other hand, you'd choose to put your parking pressing against an R-1, which is not something I'm in favor of. Now if there's a way of granting you this extension would be understanding that you will put your parking lot on the front towards the Biscayne side with some -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: He can't. Mr. Mosscrop: We're not allowed to do that. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, you say you can't, and yet, she comes in with a variance. Why can you not? I mean -- Ms. Dougherty: I think you have -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- unless the City Attorney says you cannot. Commissioner Regalado: Laws can be changed. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning): IfI may. Ana Gelabert, Planning director. The SD-9 doesn't allow for parking on Biscayne Boulevard. Unidentified Speaker: Or variances. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So then, he needs -- Commissioner Sarnoff So how is -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to just change -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Just making that point of -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- Quizno's -- how did -- because -- how does Quizno's exist? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would have to go -- I don't remember how Quizno's is. I do remember the SD-9 -- Ms. Dougherty: Is this -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- parking was not allowed. Was just because exactly the people did not want to see the parking upfront, so we usually have to ask for liners in the case that that can happen just to block so it doesn't look like parking. The SD-12 was created to allow for exactly that buffer, which is between the commercial and the residential. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Is there something else they can proffer besides a SD-9 that would accommodate what the Commissioner's asking for? City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well, the SD-12 was the one that would remain the -- the zoning would remain residential, yet you would have the buffer of the landscape protecting the residential, so it -- SD-12 was created exactly for that. It wasn't a change of zoning, and it was still allowing the zoning -- the residential zoning, yet allowing for the parking that the commercial needs, but buffering it with landscape. Ms. Dougherty: You know -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There are -- Commissioner Sarnoff And yet -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- guidelines in order to allow for that buffer to happen. Commissioner Sarnoff -- if we go with this plan as stated, we'll have how many interior parking -- how many interior tables will you have? Mr. Mosscrop: About 50, 51. Commissioner Sarnoff Fifty-one interior tables. How many exterior tables? Mr. Mosscrop: A hundred and fifty. Commissioner Sarnoff A hundred and fifty. How many parking spaces? Mr. Mosscrop: We have 22 spaces here, and we have 14 spaces here. Commissioner Sarnoff So 36 parking spaces. Mr. Mosscrop: About -- of those 36, 20 are allocated -- no, sorry -- ten are allocated for the two floors of residential up above. Commissioner Sarnoff So just with regard to your parking for restaurant, how many parking spaces do you have? Of a 200-seat restaurant, how many parking spaces have you allocated? Mr. Mosscrop: We have 17 on -site parking spaces, and an agreement with the American Legion for valet parking. Commissioner Sarnoff An agreement with the American Legion? Mr. Mosscrop: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff What's the agreement? Mr. Mosscrop: It's a signed agreement that we can use their parking lot for overflow parking, which should be valeted. What -- sorry. Just one more thing. We have -- just so you're familiar with the site, Commissioner, we have an entrance here and an entrance there, and the idea is to, when the valet people are operating, avoid traffic going around this loop road, the loop road being 67th, up that road, and then back down 68th. I know that that was one of-- a big concern of the neighbors, so we are -- the owner of the building is very aware. He wants to be a good patron, because it's not a speculative office. He's going to be present to minimize any kind of traffic flow into the neighborhoods themselves. Your concern about parking on Biscayne Boulevard, it is mandated by the City Planning that we line this lot here. This lot has to be lined with a liner building of a minimum width, so we've got that minimum width, and we've tried to City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 maximize the parking here, as you see where the Kwik Stop store used to be. The relation -- when this building is built, the person who lives in this house is going to have a much nicer view this way than they did in the past. They were looking at the back of a Kwik Stop store. Now this building is set way back here. It's only three stories high. They'll have a sidewall here, a solid, masonry sidewall, which apparently they're happy about, so I think this will actually be an improvement relative to the immediate neighbor. Marie, on this side, is looking forward to the wall being built there, so the -- in terms of the physical -- the relationship physically of parking to the neighbors, we don't believe that there's a problem. Our understanding is the biggest concern neighbors have is the circulation of the valet. Ms. Dougherty: We did have, you know, many public hearings on this, and we had lots of people in support on this street of this particular proposal, and the issue again is should the -- there should be an extension of time for the building permit. That's the only issue. We shouldn't be revisiting -- it's already designed. It -- we -- this was approved in January of '05, but we started working on this a year before that -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well -- Ms. Dougherty: -- and so -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- correct me if I'm wrong. I assume you got your first building permit without -- Ms. Dougherty: No, we haven't -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- regard to the convenient [sic] store. I'm sorry, you're right, you got your change. Ms. Dougherty: No. It's only a special exception for this lot. Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Ms. Dougherty: This is not something that -- Commissioner Sarnoff That's not designed yet, is it? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, everything. Mr. Mosscrop: Yes, it's been designed. The whole building -- the whole project that you see here is currently in the Building Department. All the drawings are done. The Building Department has given us their first round of comments to which we, the architects and the consultants, are now responding, and we were hoping to actually have had a construction permit before this date so we could get a move on. As it happens, the process has taken longer than we anticipated. That's why we're now asking for the extension to something which has already been approved. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: The only issue in front of us is the extension -- Mr. Mosscrop: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- on the matter, and the reason, what, it's been tied up in permitting or City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Mosscrop: It's because -- Well, to be fair, it's taken longer because we changed the footprint of the building because my client built the southern lot -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Mr. Mosscrop: -- so that made some redesigns, then we submitted the full set of construction drawings in August. We're just now responding to the first round of Building Department comments, so it's just a procedural thing. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't have a problem with the extension. I mean, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) deny it or make a motion. I'm prepared to make a motion for the extension of-- to extend the -- to extend it. For how long? Mr. Mosscrop: Six months. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Six months. Mr. Mosscrop: I mean, we'll -- hopefully, we'll have a permit in months. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Six months? Mr. Mosscrop: Make it a year, just -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Six months? Mr. Mosscrop: -- to be safe. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you OK with it? Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Up to a year. Mr. Mosscrop: Up to a -- make it a year. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Up to a year. Ms. Chiaro: Up to a year. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't know. I just want -- when -- Mr. Mosscrop: Make it a year. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- are you going to --? Mr. Mosscrop: Make it a year. Do it as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't know about a year. Mr. Mosscrop: Well, we hope -- I hope we have a permit next month, but you know, whatever you're willing to give us. Commissioner Sarnoff What's the condition of the property now? Mr. Mosscrop: It's -- we actually got a demolition permit and a tree removal permit to remove the Kwik Stop store, so the Kwik Stop store has gone and some -- the trees that we were permitted to remove have been removed, and the rest of it is flat with a chain link fence around City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 it, and there's a trailer on there in anticipation of starting work. Commissioner Sarnoff The reason I'm inclined to second his motion on the six months is simply because from what I understand and having walked it, you've not done a very good job of maintaining a vacant lot. Mr. Mosscrop: Well, please don't blame me; I'm the architect, butt understand your point. Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff You represent the owner, I take it? Mr. Mosscrop: Yes, yes, sure. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, you can communicate to the owner. Mr. Mosscrop: I will do. Commissioner Sarnoff I'll second the motion with the understanding that you will maintain this property in a better condition than you have so far and maybe, possibly, even make that a condition of the motion, because if you don't start maintaining that property -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: As amended by the second to -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- extend for six months, based on the condition that you clean up that property. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: It's agreeable. Mr. Mosscrop: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Toledo, I have a question myself because being a little bit familiar with construction and getting plans approved and the entire process, what I will hate to see is that we have to go through another debate and another -- you know, within six months because they were not able to get their building permit. Commissioner Sarnoff Well (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Gonzalez: You submit your building permits, and they give you comment; you have to go back and revise them, and then, when you come back again, they give you another -- other comments, something that I can understand why it's like that. I mean, I don't see why you submit a set of plans, and they give you all the comments in one shot, and you may go, take five months, three months, four months, whatever, answer all your comments, do all your changes, and then come back and get your plans approved. It's not happening like that, and I -- and the reason I'm telling you this is because Allapattah Business Development, in Allapattah, the agency that is doing affordable housing, have submitted plans for a twin home, simple twin home, about five different times, and every time they submit the plans, there're new changes and there're new conditions and there're new revisions, and times runs and runs, and you know, people get desperate to get the project built, and you know, it's frustrating, so what I wanted to make sure is that -- I will support whatever the district Commissioner wants, let me make that clear, but we need to be fair. Make sure that they're going to be able to go through the process, you know, in the time that we are allowing so they don't have to schedule another hearing, come to this City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commission again to ask for another six months because they were not able to -- Commissioner Sarnoff Let me make an amendment to the motion and ask for a one-year extension -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Mosscrop: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: I will support -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- with the understanding that this is -- this property is kept up -- Mr. Mosscrop: Yeah, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- which -- Mr. Mosscrop: -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'm going to reassure you that myself and my client are more eager than you even to get -- to start building. They really are eager and sincere, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well -- Mr. Mosscrop: -- but in the meantime, I will relay your message, your concern to maintain the lot in a better condition. Commissioner Sarnoff Understanding that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff -- Commissioner Gonzalez has more experience in this than me, if it does take longer, I want to see that, during the process, a vacant lot on Biscayne Boulevard is better maintained than it has been. Mr. Mosscrop: I'll pass that on to my client. Vice Chairman Sanchez: The maker -- Chairman Gonzalez: Definitely. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of the motion accepts the amendment. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so this is a resolution. We had a motion, and we had a second, as amended. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: And those -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- opposed have the same right. There is no nos. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and for the record, it was amended for one year instead of six months -- City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- with the same conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: With the same conditions. Mr. Mosscrop: Thank you. PZ.2 06-02237 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A WATERFRONT CHARTER REQUIREMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3(mm)(ii)(A) OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTABLISHES A 50-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PROJECTS ALONG THE MIAMI RIVER, EAST OF NORTHWEST 5TH STREET, TO PERMIT A 20-FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE WATERFRONT (REAR) YARD AND SIDE YARDS EQUAL TO EIGHTEEN (18) FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THIRTY-SIX (36) FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE FOR THE 1001 BRICKELL BAY TOWER PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE A.K.A. 1001 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 06-02237 Zoning Map.pdf 06-02237 Aerial Map.pdf 06-02237 Letter of Intent with Supporting Docs.pdf 06-02237 UDRB Reso.pdf 06-02237 Plans.pdf 06-02237 Legislation (Version 1).pdf 06-02237 Exhibit A.pdf 06-02237 Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1001 Brickell Bay Drive A.K.A. 1001 S Bayshore Drive [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): N. Patrick Range, II, Esquire, on behalf of Brickell Bay Tower, Ltd., Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PURPOSE: This will allow fewer setbacks than required for the 1001 Brickell Bay Tower project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to continue item PZ.2 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ. 2. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.2 is a request to waive from the City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 City Charter the 50 feet requirement on the bay. They are requesting a waiver of that distance to have -- in order to include residential uses on a building that is already existing, and the recommendation of Planning is for denial. We have been consistent, recommending denial for some other petition, even when the building (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at the end, Planning Department has recommend denial of the waiver of the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And they're requesting a 50 foot setback along the water? Mr. Lavernia: The 50 is the requirement. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right. Mr. Lavernia: They are requesting for 30 in order to have 20. Chairman Gonzalez: So instead of having -- Lucia Dougherty: Thank you. Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- 50, they want to have 20? Ms. Dougherty: That is correct. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: And this is a very interesting project, and we have worked very hard with the City staff who actually loves this project. Again, for the record, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here with Maurizio Cavalieri, who's the developer, and the owner of the property. Maurizio is a -- actually, a preservation architect in Miami Beach, and this is his first project in Miami, and it's a very interesting project, 'cause what he's doing is taking an existing parking garage and cladding it with residential units, but he is not taking away any of the public spaces that currently exist there today, and the building still will remain much further back than either of the two buildings on both sides, and the difference in this particular case is that the -- there is an inlet that comes in front of this building, so for a reference, this is Brickell Ave -- I mean, this is Brickell Bay Drive -- excuse me, this is Brickell Avenue. This is Brickell Bay Drive. This is the Aon building, which is a -- has Aon at the top of it, and this is the Oakwood apartments here, and this is the Four Ambassadors, so what is happening here is -- Julio Diaz, with Fullerton Diaz, is the architect. What they're basically doing is filling in gaps with residential units, 52 residential units on the bay; have agreed to provide public access to the waterfront. It's exactly the same size walkway that currently exists there today, except that now you're going to have people living there with eyes on the walkway, using the walkway with safety, and maintaining the walkway. We've gone to the Urban Development Review Board, which have approved this project, as well as the Dade County Shoreline Review meeting. Dade County Shoreline Review Committee approved this unanimously with certain conditions, which I'm going to read into the record. They said they -- we must place sign at the South Bayshore Drive side of the building, notifying the public of a public walkway, provide quiet -- provide a gate at the north end of the walkway to show pedestrian connectivity, move coconut palms to the east edge of the property, provide visual landscaping, a walkway terminus at the north end of the shoreline walkway, and verify lighting in the final plans, so in conclusion, we have a condition that's very different than everybody else. In other words, our property goes in as an inlet and was never filled. All these other properties were filled in the '60s, so they extend much further out than we do, even though our building is much further back, so while we're asking for what sounds like a waiver -- and we don't have to prove hardship here. What we have to prove to you is that we were going to provide some public amenities, and what we were proposing as a public amenity is to landscape, light control, have adequate safety for people and pedestrians to walk behind what is an existing, so with that we'd urge your approval for this waterfront waiver, and City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 again, we've worked with staff for a very long time. I think they'd tell you that they really love this project, but their concern about is the precedent it may establish for waiving this waterfront set back, and what I'm saying to you, this won't be a precedent because there aren't any other conditions that have this cut in. We wouldn't be here asking for this if this was filled in like our neighbors, so that, we'd ask your approval. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on this item, please come forward. All right. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff. Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah. I'd make a motion to deny. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second -- you made the motion? Commissioner Sarnoff To deny. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're making it now? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second -- Ms. Dougherty: Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to deny. Ms. Dougherty: -- Commissioner, could I ask you to defer this and go out and see it? I was at the Mandarin today, and what you're seeing from this area is a open parking garage of this building. This is such a better condition, ifyou could justgo out and see it as opposed to denying it -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'd be -- Ms. Dougherty: -- out of hand. Commissioner Sarnoff -- more than glad to accept a deferral. I don't see it. All I know is, conceptually, you're putting the camel's nose inside the tent, and everybody else is going to get up there and say, "I have a great idea, but only need 30 of your feet, of your access." That's my concern. My primary concern is -- Ms. Dougherty: I understand. Commissioner Sarnoff -- the Dan Paul argument, is it not? Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me? Commissioner Sarnoff Isn't this the Dan Paul --? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, but look at what we're doing. All we're doing is -- Commissioner Sarnoff I understand -- Ms. Dougherty: -- filling in. City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff -- what you're doing, but another developer will come up here and say, "You've waived 30 feet of a 50-foot setback. Why wouldn't you do it for me?" Ms. Dougherty: But we do do that. This isn't -- well, this wouldn't be the first time it's happened. We did it for One Miami. We did it for Dupont Plaza. This is not a first time this has happened. If you provide -- and this is what the Code says. The Code says, "If you provide public amenities" -- this is how you get people to maintain your walkways, and this is how you get them to actually create walkways on the waterfront on private property is by allowing them to have these kinds of concessions, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff I have no problem with deferring it and -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff -- looking at it, but I'll tell you right now, I'm going to make a motion -- ifyou want me to defer it, I'll defer it, but right now I've heard nothing -- Ms. Dougherty: I'd like you to -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- to convince me. Ms. Dougherty: -- come out and see the conditions. Commissioner Sarnoff Seeing is believing, I agree. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, you have a motion and a second. Are you willing to withdraw your motion and continue the item? Commissioner Sarnoff I am, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a -- Mr. Lavernia: A date, please. Continue to what, Commissioner? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- you need to -- you want to make a motion -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'll make a motion -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to continue? Commissioner Sarnoff -- for continuance. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. For -- Ms. Dougherty: Until February -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- what date? City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: -- 22? Chairman Gonzalez: What date, February 22? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion to continue and a second for February 22. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right, and that is item number 2. PZ.3 05-01515sc RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT BETWEEN NORTHEAST 79TH STREET AND NORTHEAST 80TH STREET, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A". 05-01515sc Planning Analysis.PDF 05-01515sc Public Works Analysis.PDF 05-01515sc Zoning Map.pdf 05-01515sc Aerial Map.pdf 05-01515sc Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 05-01515sc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 05-01515sc ZB Reso.PDF 05-01515sc Legislation (Version 2).pdf 05-01515sc Exhibit A.pdf 05-01515sc CC Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately NE Bayshore Court Between NE 79th Street and NE 80th Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of River Bait and Tackle, LLC FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with a condition*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval with a condition* on November 2, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 11, 2006 by a vote of 5-2. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the previously approved Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-07-0057 Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Number 3. Chairman Gonzalez: Number 3? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry. Number 3. Mr. Lavernia: Number 3 is request to -- for a street closure as part of the Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit that was already approved, and they provide public benefit as part of the Major Use approval. The Planning Department is recommending approval, and the Zoning Board recommend approval, too. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Quick. Javier Avino: For the record, Javier Avino, with law offices at 1221 -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me get this clear. The item that was just deferred was PZ. 2. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 2. Chairman Gonzalez: You got me confused. You said PZ.3, so I was right. It's PZ. 2. Now we hear PZ. 3. All right. Yes, sir. Mr. Avino: For the record again, Javier Avino, with law offices at 1221 BrickellAvenue, here on behalf of the applicant. With me today is Lucia Dougherty from my office. Let me just go through the project really quick just to, I think, clarify a few things. This is, as Robert mentioned, the Oasis Major Use Special Permit, which is along the Biscayne Bay, between 79th Sfreet and 80th Sfreet. We had previously come in in February of last year for the vacation of the portion that you're seeing in yellow of NortheastBayshore Court. This has already been approved by you all, this entire portion, which constitutes about 90 percent of the street. What was not asked for in that application was this piece in blue, which constitutes about ten percent of the street. That piece was intentionally left out of the original application. Now when I say it was intentionally left out of the original application, it wasn't because we intended to leave that portion of the street open to the public. The reason for that was because FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) owns or owned, I should say, this parcel here, this parcel here, and what we believed was this parcel here, so when we worked with City staff -- and this is part of a plat -- they said, you know, if this is part of FDO -- if this is indeed owned by FDOT, then it does not need to be vacated. We later have come to realize that that piece is not -- was not vested in FDOT. It was indeed public right-of-way. We worked with the Law Department on this. A determination was made by them. We worked, you know, a lot with the Law Department, as well as Public Works, that it needed to go through this public vacation process, although it's really a technicality. I mean, you already closed the sfreet. The intent was always to close the entire sfreet, so what we're here on is this little piece, this little piece in blue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, just a question for you. Mr. Avino: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We've already approved the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), right? Mr. Avino: You already approved the MUSP, and you already approved -- City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: So you're simply -- Mr. Avino: -- the street -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- coming back to close the Bayshore Court to allow for a unified development site, right? Mr. Avino: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is that what you're doing? Mr. Avino: All we're here on is for this little piece in blue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That little site. Mr. Avino: Just this little tiny piece in blue. The MUSP is already approved, the piece -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Avino: -- in yellow, which is the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Any time we do that, we ask what's the public benefit. Mr. Avino: Yes. Thank you for asking that. There are a lot of public benefits that are being provided for this. This piece in green that you see down here was also owned by the developer and is being deeded to the City in fee simple for use as a park, in conjunction with planting -- and let me go through my list here. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How big is that property, those two lots? Mr. Avino: The piece across the street, which is being donated as a park, is 20 -- approximately 21,310 square feet. The street that you already approved is 13,569, and the street that's pending approval today is 1,799, so it's a net difference to the City of about 6,500 square feet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Has that proffer already been made in the MUSP? Mr. Avino: Correct, yes. It was a condition of the MUSP approval, it's a condition of this street vacation approval, and it's a condition of the approval today. Lucia Dougherty: And by the way, when I -- when he said that there was a mistake, and the City and everybody thought it belonged to FDOT, including FDOT, and they accepted $13, 000 from us in payment for that little piece in blue, and then we subsequently determined that they didn't own it, but we're going to fry to get our $13, 000 back. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Does that conclude your presentation? Mr. Avino: Yes, that does. I'll just -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Avino: -- open it up for whatever comments. Chairman Gonzalez: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on this item, please come forward. Allyson Warren: Good afternoon. Allyson Warren, 650 Northeast 82 Terrace, I think, on behalf of the Shorecrest Homeowners Association; -- I am the president. The Related Group and their attorneys and the developers have worked with the Association from day one. They have provided a great number of benefits to the neighborhood, including the parkland and the planting of the park, the public access bay walk, the planting of one street outside of their own property, with liner trees, and rebuilding of the concrete wall. After that agreement was reached with the association, they also have agreed and offered to pay for and install some traffic -calming devices onto the internal streets to the neighborhood, because we've got a huge problem that has -- that we've been unable to address in other ways. They have come to meeting after meeting. There were some dissenters. They had resolved their differences, to my understanding, and there is a letter agreement with the association that's been part of the Major Use Special Permit process also from the beginning that lays out all of the things that the neighborhood worked out with these developers. There was no cash, nothing but specific benefits to the entire neighborhood. One of the gentlemen who was frying to be here, but his business is in Delray Beach, lives in the condominium directly facing this project, and where he started out not so sure about the project, his main concern was this exact issue, because where -- you can't -- you can see it fi^om there. Where the street cuts in that you're closing is a huge location for accidents be -- because it's prior to the main curve that becomes 82nd Street, and where people were cutting in there, there were just accidents galore coming over the bridge, so the people on the south side, as well as the remainder of the Shorecrest neighborhood, we're in favor of this. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed;; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff. Commissioner Sarnoff I'd like to understand better what exactly park is being dedicated. Is it just a piece of property, or is it going to be made by The Related Group to become a park? Because I know that this -- the parcel is barren. Mr. Avino: Right. We are donating it to the City, and as part of our agreement, as Allyson just made with -- just mentioned with the Shorecrest Homeowners Association, we have agreed to plantings on that, so our intent is to make it a park. Ultimately, it's up to the City whether they want to make it into a park. We are deeding it to the City, you know, in fee simple. Commissioner Sarnoff I hear what you're saying. Mr. Avino: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff I want to make sure I understand what you're -- what -- I know what it looks like today. Mr. Avino: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff What is it going to look like when you tender it? Mr. Avino: Well, we've -- Ms. Dougherty: It'll be landscaped. That's what -- Mr. Avino: Right. City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: -- it'll be. Commissioner Sarnoff Can I see that landscape plan? Ms. Dougherty: Not now. We don't have it now, but we'll landscape it to the City's standards. Commissioner Sarnoff You may not want City standards. You may want better than that. Ms. Dougherty: Well, we don't have a landscape plan right now, I don't think. Do we? Mr. Avino: No. Ms. Dougherty: OK, so we don't have one, but we have -- Commissioner Sarnoff Would you get me -- Ms. Dougherty: -- agreed to landscape it to -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- a landscape plan? Ms. Dougherty: Huh? Commissioner Sarnoff Could you get me a landscape plan? Ms. Dougherty: Sure. If you'd like us to work with you in connection with the -- Mr. Avino: We can work with the Commissioner's office -- Ms. Dougherty: -- landscape, we'll happy to do that. Mr. Avino: -- absolutely. Ms. Dougherty: That's a good idea. Mr. Avino: We'll work -- Commissioner Sarnoff Can we -- Mr. Avino: -- with your office. Commissioner Sarnoff -- defer this so I can see your landscape plan? Ms. Dougherty: We will -- if you would approve it, then what we will do is we will landscape -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Subject to. Ms. Dougherty: -- it to your standards. Now one of the things that we did have in the past, many people -- there was a lot of discussion. Do you want a playground? Some people who live in that neighborhood did not want a playground. They would like a passive park, so we've agreed to do a passive park, and we'll landscape it to the standards, and we'll work with your office, if you would like. Commissioner Sarnoff Fair enough. OK I'll -- City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff -- make a motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Ms. Dougherty: I have a suggestion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are there any conditions? Ms. Dougherty: Make it a condition that we provide a landscape plan to you within two months, and then we'll continue work, OK? Commissioner Sarnoff I make a motion to approve, subject to Greenberg Traurig providing to our office a landscape plan acceptable to my office within 60 days. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second -- Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- as amended. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Before the -- Chairman Gonzalez: It's a resolution? Ms. Chiaro: -- Commission votes -- Commissioner Sarnoff Did I overstep myself? Ms. Chiaro: -- just one legal point. Conditions cannot be attached to a vacation. The developer may agree to voluntarily proffer that which -- Commissioner Sarnoff That's why I love deferrals. Ms. Chiaro: I'm sorry? Commissioner Sarnoff That's why I love deferrals. Ms. Dougherty: Can we --? Ms. Chiaro: But there can be -- under the law, there can be no conditions -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. That's -- Ms. Chiaro: -- on vacating property. Commissioner Sarnoff -- why I like deferrals, and people expedite themselves when they want to come back real quickly, and they want to impress you with, you know, giving you something. Ms. Dougherty: What we could do -- Could we do this? Could we make it a condition of our MUSP, which was already approved? City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Chiaro: Yes, you can amend the condition to the Major Use Special Permit that was already approved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but then you would have to amend the MUSP. Ms. Dougherty: Which we don't mind. Ms. Chiaro: No. You can amend the conditions. No, you would not have to amend the MUSP. We can adjust the language in the MUSP conditions to greater clarify that which -- Commissioner Sarnoff That's fine. Ms. Chiaro: -- the plantings will be on the property that was previously -- Ms. Dougherty: Very good. Ms. Chiaro: -- donated to the City in fee simple. You can do that by separate resolution. Commissioner Sarnoff Then I stand corrected by Madam City Attorney, andl would certainly adopt her motion. I'd certainly adopt that as part of a motion, that it be part of a MUSP amendment. Mr. Avino: And we have no problem with that. Ms. Chiaro: I would ask you that you vote then on the vacation separately -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right -- Ms. Chiaro: -- and then adopt a resolution to include the conditions that you set forth. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so -- Commissioner Sarnoff All right. Let me make a motion to approve the -- adopt the vacation. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a resolution, right? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And now make a motion -- Chairman Gonzalez: Now you have to make a reso -- a motion. Commissioner Sarnoff I make a motion for resolution that the MUSP be amended, that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Resolution? No. Ms. Chiaro: That staff -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- the owner of the property provide to my office, within 60 days, a plan acceptable to my office for the landscaping of lots 2 and -- I guess 1 and 2 on the Hayworth's City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Village, block 4 -- PB (Plat Book) 44 and Pg. (Page) 54. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why don't you make sure all the five Commissioners get that? It's not a big deal. Just the five Commissioners to get that. Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, that's -- every Commissioner can look at it. I have no problem. Mr. Avino: Not a problem. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion carries. Mr. Avino: Thank you very much. PZ.3 05-01515sca RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OASIS ON THE BAY MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, PROVIDING FOR STAFF APPROVAL OF A NON -SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION ALLOWING THE APPLICANT, GREENBERG TRAURIG, TO SUBMIT WITHIN 60 DAYS, AN ACCEPTABLE PLAN FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF LOTS 1 AND 2, HAYWORTH'S VILLAGE, PLAT BOOK 44, PAGE 54. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-07-0059 PZ.4 06-01242ec RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE, EASEMENTS LOCATED SOUTH OF NORTHWEST 14TH STREET BETWEEN NORTHWEST 10TH AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 11TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-01242ec Planning Analysis.PDF 06-01242ec Public Works Analysis.PDF 06-01242ec Zoning Map.pdf 06-01242ec Aerial Map.pdf 06-01242ec Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 06-01242ec ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01242ec ZB Reso.PDF 06-01242ec Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01242ec Exhibit A.pdf 06-01242ec CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf 06-01242ec CC Zoning Map.pdf 06-01242ec CC Fact Sheet 02-14-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately South of NW 14th Street Between NW 10th Avenue and NW 11th Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Iris Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of Miami Hotel Investments, Ltd. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on September 14, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 11, 2006 by a vote of 6-1. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the previously approved Civica Towers Major Use Special Permit. CONTINUED Item PZ.4 was deferred to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.5 06-00086mm RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13, 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE LIMA PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2919 AND 2937 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND 330 NORTHEAST 30TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 490-FEET, 43-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 206 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 5,200 SQUARE FEET OF PROPOSED RETAIL SPACE; IN ADDITION TO EXISTING 30,430 SQUARE FEET (OFFICE) AND 11,473 SQUARE FEET (RETAIL) USES; AND APPROXIMATELY 402 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00086mm - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00086mm - PAB Analysis.pdf 06-0086mm - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-00086mm - Zoning Map.pdf 06-00086mm - Aerial.pdf 06-00086mm - PAB Projects in the Vicinity.pdf 06-00086mm - IDRC Comments (7.18.06).pdf 06-00086mm - Traffic Sufficiency Letter 12.05.05).pdf 06-00086mm - Public Works Comments (1.18.06).pdf 06-00086mm - UDRB Resolution (9.20.06.3).pdf 06-00086mm - MDAD Planning Comments (10.17.05).pdf 06-00086mm - School Board Comments (1.03.06).pdf 06-00086mm - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-00086mm Exhibit A.pdf 06-00086mm Exhibit B.pdf 06-00086mm PAB Reso.PDF 06-00086mm CC Projects in the Vicinity.pdf 06-00086mm - Front Cover.PDF 06-00086mm - Inside Cover.PDF 06-00086mm - Table of Contents I to III.PDF 06-00086mm - I. Project Information (A to J).PDF 06-00086mm - I.A Letter of Intent.PDF 06-00086mm - I.B Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF 06-00086mm - I.0 Approved MUSP Resolution 06-0132.PDF 06-00086mm - I.D Zoning Write-Up.PDF 06-00086mm - I.E Zoning Atlas.PDF 06-00086mm - I.F Project Data Ssheet.PDF 06-00086mm - I.G Deed-Computer.PDF 06-00086mm - I.H Ownership List.PDF 06-00086mm - I.I State of Florida Documents.PDF 06-00086mm - I.J Directory of Project Principals.PDF 06-00086mm - II. Project Description A(1 to 4).PDF 06-00086mm - III. Supporting Documents (Tab 1 to 3).PDF 06-00086mm - Tab 1. Modified Traffic Impact.PDF 06-00086mm - Tab.2 Survey of Property.PDF 06-00086mm - Tab 3. Drawings Submitted (page 1 to 34).PDF 06-00086mm - Additional Documents(Part 1 of 2).PDF 06-00086mm - Additional documents (Part 2 of 2).PDF 06-00086mm CC Projects in the Vicinity.pdf 06-00086mm CC Analysis.pdf 06-00086mm Revised School Board Impact Analysis.pdf 06-00086mm CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-00086mm CC Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2919 and 2937 Biscayne Boulevard and 330 NE 30th Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire, on behalf of 2937 Ferrari, LLC and 2915 Biscayne, LLC, Owners FINDINGS: City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on November 15, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the substantial modification of the Lima project. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-07-0055 Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.5. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.5 is a consideration of a substantial notification for the Lima Major Use Special Permit already approved, at 2919 Biscayne Boulevard, 2937 Biscayne Boulevard, and 330 Northeast 30th Street. Vice Chairman Sanchez: This is another MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) that was approved and is coming back to us. Mr. Lavernia: As I said, this is a substantial modification to the previously approved MUSP. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, OK, so they've made substantial modifications -- changes. Mr. Lavernia: Yes. We're recommending approval, and conditions from design, from the Planning Department. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Could you put on the records [sic] the modifications that have been made? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. That's -- ready to do it. Pursuant to design related comments received by the Planning Director, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) the applicant shall reconfigure the vehicular circulation so that all entrances are from Northeast 30th Street or Northeast 4th Avenue; (b) articulate the pedesfrian sidewalk to give dominance to the pedesfrian realm over the vehicular area by providing a sidewalk with a consistent pattern and height that continues across the vehicular area; (c) vehicles shall rise to the sidewalk level with ramping beginning at the outer edge of the curb, with the ramp slope being the maximum allowed by Public Works Department; (d) [sic] the plaza should not include a driveway to continue to the face of the building to provide a wide sidewalk;; 0 the parking pedestal louver screening and the aluminum balcony railing will need to match the concrete facade of the Technomarine Building in color and pattern -- not in material. That's it. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me ask a question. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? Is there any opposition to PZ. 5? No opposition. All right. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Adrienne Pardo: Good afternoon. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner. With me here today, as well, is Mr. Kobi Karp, the architect of record, as well as Jennifer McCooney, and with us here as well is Sonia Shreffler-Bogart, who's with David Plummer & Associates. Our application, we're City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 requesting approval. We can go through all the changes, if you'd like. I don't know if that's necessary, if you want me to, but essentially, we have an existing -- the property takes up an entire block. It's located off of Biscayne Boulevard, between 29th and 30th. The property is located -- it's the entire block on Biscayne Boulevard, between Northeast 30th and 29th and 4th Avenue over here, and there's an existing MiMo (Miami Modern) building on the property, which is right here. It's an office building of approximately 30,000 square feet, with 10,000 square feet of retail, which we are maintaining. We're keeping this building, and then there's an existing small out parcel building that will have a Starbucks in it, and then there's the proposed new tower. The reason we're before you today as a substantial amendment is because we want to maintain that existing building. We're going to remodel it, but we pushed the tower back, and because we moved the tower back more than ten feet, we're required to come back before the Commission. That's in the Zoning Ordinance, if you move a building more than ten feet in any direction, so that's essentially -- we kept the same style of the building. We kept the same -- actually, we lowered it by one unit. It's 206 units, and we actually had increased the parking than what it was originally. We increased it by approximately 39 spaces. We accept the Planning Department's recommendations. The only thing, which I'd like to just take a couple of minutes of your time, is on one of the conditions. We have a proposed "exit only." Actually, we used to have ingress and egress to Biscayne Boulevard. Right now we have it as "exit only, " and we're requesting that we be able to keep this. Planning staff is -- has a condition that we not have any access here at all. The reason we are requesting to keep this condition is because we have the existing -- this is the small out -parcel. It's about it's about 2,200 square feet that the owner has a lease with Starbucks, and Starbucks has requested that we be able to have this exit onto Biscayne Boulevard. We think that it will help fraffic in the area, and I'll just say that briefly why. The only traffic that would come out here are these 15 spaces. The traffic for the building itself will come off of Northeast 4th and go into the garage, but it's very important for the retailer to be able to have these parking spaces here for the cars to either exit to Northeast 30th, or they would exit onto Biscayne Boulevard and make a right turn only. There would be a stop sign and a "right turn only" provided, rather than if they have to go out to Northeast 30th only; there's no traffic light here. What that will do is it has a good chance -- if you had it backed up at Biscayne and Northeast 30th, it would take the traffic back here and then it would bring more fraffic onto the roads back here. That's why we're requesting it. It's only a few parking spaces -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Pardo: -- for those few. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, usually, when we approve a MUSP -- Ms. Pardo: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and then there's any modifications made, and you come back to us. I'm very prudent on that, because -- in other words, I -- we -- I certainly won't want you to pull a fast one on me, and I'm not saying you, but you know, some developers may present it in a way where they could get it through the Commission, and then later on modify it to how they wanted to get it, and I just want to make sure that Planning -- PAB (Planning Advisory Board) approved it 5/0, correct? And those -- they went -- those modifications went through them, and also Planning recommended approval after your reviewing the -- Mr. Lavernia: With those conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and basically, I just want to make sure that you put all the modifications on the record, and as long as you put them on the record, and I feel that you have the recommendation from PAB and Planning, I guess I'm OK with it, but just the process itself when MUSP come back, I just like to be very careful and make sure you don't, you know, throw City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 me a fastball. Ms. Pardo: No. The reason we're back before you is because -- I'm looking to see ifI have a -- here, this was the original design, and you had the tower; was right on Biscayne Boulevard -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right, and you moved it back ten feet. Ms. Pardo: Right. This building was going to be demolished, but the developer has decided to keep this building. They have a lease with Starbucks, and because of that, the building shifted. See here, it was on Biscayne Boulevard. The building shifted back more than ten feet, so we were required to come back for a substantial modification because of that. When we did that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there any opposition? Ms. Pardo: -- we added more. The only thing we're asking for now, besides the approval of this modification, we're asking that one be removed that says they cannot have the "exit only" to Biscayne Boulevard, and I also -- I don't know ifI should put this as a proffer on the record, but there was a -- I know Commissioner Sarnoff likes to see two spaces for every two -bedroom unit and one space for every one -bedroom unit. Right now we have slightly under that. We can do that, and I can proffer that into the record, if you want to make that a condition of it, that we would provide two spaces. This particular district only requires one space for one bedrooms or two bedrooms. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is the Administration OK with the exit onto Biscayne Boulevard? Ms. Pardo: No. They've -- don't want it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: They don't want it. Mr. Lavernia: No, we are not. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, because see, that's -- usually modifications come back, and there's always one or two items that -- Ms. Pardo: Right. That's something -- we didn't have this out parceled when we came before you the first time. We didn't have this building in the plans. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What are your options if you can't exit Biscayne Boulevard -- Ms. Pardo: That this would be closed -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- 30th Street or 29th Sfreet? Ms. Pardo: These cars would have to go out to 30th Sfreet, back to 30th Street. There's no light here, so what that will do is if this gets backed up -- because a lot of times, you know, Starbucks has a lot of their business in the mornings -- then what it does is it takes the cars -- let me see where I can show you -- it takes them -- it'll take them back here and bring them out on this side, perhaps, but it's just -- it's very small. IfI could have our traffic engineer address this real briefly, you know -- where are you? Sonia -- just go through it, why it's important. We also narrowed it so it's only 14 feet wide, so you couldn't have ingress and egress. It would only be "exit only, " with a "right turn only, " a stop sign, and it would serve these -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But right now you have two exit ways. You could either go onto Biscayne Boulevard -- no, you cannot -- City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Hs. Pardo: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- or -- Hs. Pardo: Our plans shows an exit onto Biscayne or an exit onto Northeast 30th Sfreet. For these -- only for these 15 cars. You have these spaces here -- actually, 15 spaces. These spaces here and here. Now all the spaces for the building itself enter from 4th Avenue, and they wouldn't be able to go out to Biscayne Boulevard -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Hs. Pardo: -- and the loading and also exits back there. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have your fraffic engineers go through the -- Sonia Shreffler-Bogart: Sonia Shreffler-Bogart, with David Plummer & Associates, 1750 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables. As Adrienne explained, currently they're proposing the driveway here, exit only onto Biscayne Boul -- off onto Biscayne Boulevard. However, since the intersection at 30th Street is unsignalized, there's a tendency to have delays. It's not that the queue is really long backing up on 30th Sfreet. It's just that the delays, because of all the traffic on Biscayne, doesn't allow the gaps necessary, and by allowing this exit only, you're going to better distribute the fraffic that wants to go north on Biscayne Boulevard into the roadway, network. You'll not only be able to turn rightfrom 30th, but you'll also be able to turn rightfrom the driveway on Biscayne Boulevard. Commissioner Sarnoff I'll make a motion to approve it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a resolution. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Allowing the exit to Biscayne Boulevard? Commissioner Sarnoff Fifteen cars. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Huh? Commissioner Sarnoff It's fifteen cars. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, but -- it's fine, but -- let me just make my point. we're focusing on making Biscayne Boulevard pedestrian -friendly -- Hr. Lavernia: Yeah. I mean, if Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and -- you know, 15 cars may not be a different [sic], but one again -- once again you start opening the doors for others, and when someone else comes along and may -- what are you going to tell them? Oh, we'll allow you 15 cars, so that's something that I'm always worried about. Hs. Pardo: Could I just add --? With this new design, the reason we have added to that pedestrian friendliness, and we have all of these -- we have this outdoor plaza area, which we didn't have before, and we have all the pavers -- City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's -- Ms. Pardo: -- in here. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- a vehicular plaza for cars. It's not -- Ms. Pardo: No, no, here. Here is where I was pointing to. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh. Ms. Pardo: The additional plaza area that we've added to it, and that's why we had the -- we also narrowed it so that you would have -- it wouldn't detrimentally affect the pedestrians, but it's extremely important -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second, right? Ms. Pardo: -- because for the retail -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would second it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. We already have a second. This requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on the item, please come forward. Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I have some questions I'd like to ask the City Attorney and/or the Planning Department, specifically relating to compliance and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. I'd like to read a quick passage from it. Objective TL11, "All arterial and collector roadways under county and state jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency." Biscayne Boulevard, of course, is a state road, and therefore, it should operate at the state level, and Biscayne -- excuse me -- FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) requires a level of "D." Biscayne is already an "F." Therefore, would not this development be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Lavernia: As part of the Major Use Special Permit process, there was a concurrency analysis done, and there was no problem with the number of the concurrency analysis. They are OK. Mr. Cruz: Did the concurrency analysis use FDOT's level of service or did it use the City of Miami's person/trip methodology? Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning): Elvis, the -- that application, we would need to go back, but the levels of services we use is the ones that we are required to, and we certainly could provide that, but when the MUSP was approved, that is part of the analysis that we need to make, and it's a form that we follow together with the County and the requirements that we have placed upon the City ofMiami. If we would not have met that, the MUSP would not have been able to be approved. Mr. Cruz: I'm not sure I understood your answer. You're saying that you followed the state level of service or the City? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We followed -- and I would like to -- I don't have the numbers right now with me, but the levels of services, the number that we have to use is the one that we're required, and I can get that information for you. As part also of the large scale, which I'm reminded by City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 the rest of the Planning staff that is also looked at as part of the review that we're required to do before we bring the MUSP to you, which was, again, approved. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, there is a question there. Are you following the State's -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- or you're following the City's? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think it's -- I'm -- Commissioner Sarnoff It's a state road. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- ifI could have -- Commissioner Sarnoff That's why I'm curious. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah, it is a state road, but the concurrency we have is we follow -- we work with the same numbers that the County has -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well, now you've brought a third party in. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and I would need to get that number for you, because that form that comes from the County -- and I would -- I could probably get that information from (UNINTELLIGIBLE); I just don't have it at my finger (UNINTELLIGIBLE), if it's the County or the state. Whatl can tell you is that when we do the analysis, we -- the number that is required is the one we use, and then, as part of the Major Use Special Permit, we have a large scale review that is not only City staff but it's other agencies that review the project, and at that point, everyone give the comments. Those comments are incorporated so when our recommendation comes in front of this Commission, it has gone through that review -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- City, County, and other agencies that may pertain to that project. Commissioner Sarnoff -- is there a way of counting Biscayne Boulevard of being anything other than F-rated, and if it is rated differently by the City, how is it rated differently? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would like to defer that question to Mary Conway, in the Transportation office. Commissioner Sarnoff Where is Mary? Ms. Pardo: We also have our traffic engineer here, who did the traffic engineer for the MUSP, who can address questions, if you like? Commissioner Sarnoff Sure, if she knows. Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: We set up the methodology with the City ofMiami, and the -- using people trips, or person trips, or vehicular frips; both of them are used. Person frips are used for the second analysis and vehicular trips are used for the intersection analysis. We meet the level of service standard for both. On the segments -- Commissioner Sarnoff But he's asking -- he's not asking you a conclusion; he's asking you a processing question. Are you basing it on an F-rated road from FDOT? City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: We're basing it on the data that's collected, and it's meeting the level of service "D" standard. Mr. Cruz: May I ask a question of the fraffic engineer? All right. Just so we understand each other, the Comprehensive Plan says that this road, Biscayne Boulevard being a state road, has to operate at a level of service established by the State, not the City ofMiami. There is another paragraph here that talks about all other streets in the City being allowed to operate under a traffic concurrency exception area. I imagine that's where you can use the City ofMiami methodology, but from what I read here -- and that's why I asked that the Attorney -- the City Attorney concur or turn me down -- this road should operate at the state level, and the State requires "D" as a minimum; Biscayne is already at "F, " so that's why I'm having the reality disconnect here. How can you approve a project on a street that's already rated "F" when the Comprehensive Plan says you're not supposed to do that? Where am I wrong? Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: The methodology and the MUSP traffic study are initially submitted to the City ofMiami, and they submit both the methodology and the MUSP traffic study to FDOT for their approval. Commissioner Sarnoff So you're saying FDOT approves this inevitably? Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: If there's any type of FDOT roadway -- state roadway involved, they've been involved in the process. Mr. Cruz: So FDOT approved this level of service, even though it's in conflict with the City of Miami's Comprehensive Plan? Kobi Karp: Hi. My name is Kobi Karp. I'm the architect for the project. What I think you should really do is you should speak to FDOT because their calculations are based on links and ours are really based more on intersections. Again, I'm an architect, but based on what I've known -- working with FDOT for FDOT, working with the City ofMiami and the City ofMiami and the County. That's where he should really send his questions, and I think what he'll see is that the analysis is different between the links and the intersections. FDOT is for the links. We are doing the analysis on the intersections. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Karp: So just to be clear, if you want, what she's saying is that she's doing the link analysis with the methodology of the City ofMiami. That's how it meets the criteria. Chairman Gonzalez: Mary. Mary Conway: Mary Conway, chief of Operations. Regarding fraffic engineering and the traffic methodology that are done for these projects, they are based on a model that is maintained by the County. It is one uniform model as far as the numbers that are generated. Now, as far as the actual modeling that is done, the entire City gill/Pamirs a transportation concurrency exception area, so the modeling is not based on a vehicular level of service. It's based on a person/trip methodology, so the methodology is different in the City ofMiami than, say, it would be in Unincorporated Dade, but the data that goes into the model is consistent countywide. Mr. Cruz: Mary, I realize you were not in the room when I first asked the question, but what I was referring to is this passage in the Comprehensive Plan that says, "All arterial and collector roadways under county and state jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency," and from that it appears that the state City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 level of service is "F" on Biscayne Boulevard. Now down here it does talk about TCEA, Traffic Concurrency Exception Area, for other -- all other city streets. Is it not true that Biscayne should follow the state model and not the City model? Ms. Conway: Once again, not exactly. DOT (Department of Transportation) measures level of service for Biscayne Boulevard or any other state facilities based on vehicular level of service. However, when a developer or a property owner comes into the City and they're required to do traffic engineering modeling associated with their projects, they do it according to a person/frip methodology, not vehicular, so even though, from a vehicular methodology, Biscayne Boulevard may be at an "F" and may be failing based on a vehicular standard, the person/trip methodology that's approved by the Department of Community Affairs, at a state level, recognizes the fact that the City ofMiami -- the eastern portions of the City ofMiami is an urbanized area transitioning to a very highly urbanized area and cannot solely rely on single passenger vehicles as a only mode of transportation, so there are allowances that are given that transit is available and transit usage will be used. That's a major reason that we are working so hard to advance the streetcar project so that while we use the person/frip methodology, it's also incumbent on us to be providing viable alternate transportation modes via transit. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I hope that -- Mr. Cruz: My question is answered. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: -- serve your -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Call the question. Chairman Gonzalez: -- inquiry. All right. This is a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. Ms. Pardo: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.6. Mr. Lavernia: Mr. Chairman, yes, it was approved with the condition "a" or --? Chairman Gonzalez: With conditions. Mr. Lavernia: With the condition "a." Ms. Pardo: Wait, wait, wait. Chairman Gonzalez: With -- Ms. Pardo: It was -- no. It was approved without that one condition, is my understanding. Commissioner Regalado: I was going to say that, you know. Ms. Slazyk: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) exception. Vice Chairman Sanchez: For the record, the condition -- Chairman Gonzalez: Time out. City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of the exiting was not approved. Ms. Pardo: Right. Ms. Slazyk: Right. They removed it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: The exiting. Chairman Gonzalez: They removed it. Commissioner Sarnoff I did appro -- Mr. Lavernia: They remove what? Ms. Slazyk: The condition about no egress on the boulevard. Commissioner Sarnoff -- I mean, my motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, he approved it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: With the exit onto -- Chairman Gonzalez: No. Without the condition, right? Commissioner Sarnoff Right -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Ms. Pardo: Allowed with that one exit. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and that was with the condition -- Ms. Pardo: All the other conditions. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and with the condition of parking. Ms. Slazyk: Adding parking. Ms. Pardo: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Five hundred and seventeen spaces. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Ms. Pardo: Two hun -- two spaces for every two -bedroom and one for every one -bedroom. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so we're all on the same sheet of music on that? Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Cruz: There's no parking and exit on Biscayne. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff But you were playing trumpet. PZ.6 06-00155a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" AND "INDUSTRIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00155a Legislation.pdf 06-00155 & 06-00155a Exhibit A.pdf 06-00155a Analysis.pdf 06-00155a Land Use Map.pdf 06-00155, 06-00155a & 06-00155b Aerial Map.pdf 06-00155 & 05-00155a School Impact Analysis.pdf 06-00155a PAB Reso.pdf 06-00155a PAB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 04-27-06.pdf 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 05-25-06.pdf 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-00155a & 06-00155 Reconsideration Letters.PDF 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 10-26-06.pdf 06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf 06-00155a SR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00155a CC Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 06-00155a Submittal Letter Greenberg Traurig.pdf 06-00155a Submittal Plans 11-29-05.pdf 06-00155a Submittal Plan 12-05-06.pdf 06-00155a Submittal Proposed C-1 Manny A Vega.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management Corporation City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on February 1, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File IDs 06-00155 and 06-00155b. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Avenue One Major Use Special Permit. NOTE: This item was reconsidered on October 12, 2006; see File ID 06-01663. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones 12875 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.6. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.6, 7, and 8 are companion items. PZ.6 is the land use change, 7 is the zoning change, and 8 is the Major Use. Chairman Gonzalez: Once again, let me ask the same question. Is there anyone in opposition to PZ.6, 7, or 8, and the address is 1905 Northwest 1st Court. No opposition. All right. Is there opposition to the item? Commissioner Sarnoff PZ.6. Chairman Gonzalez: No opposition. All right. Commissioner Sarnoff Have no one. Commissioner Spence -Jones: You want her to go -- Chairman Gonzalez: You want to hear the presentation? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) already did it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. I -- one of the things I do want to say, first of all, I want to say to Commissioner Sarnoff that I really appreciate your -- you deferring to my involvement on this project. I know this is an area that really touches your district, but as you know, my community in Overtown's very sensitive about what's happening in the area already, but I truly appreciate you, you know, deferring to me on this particular item. Commissioner Sarnoff Just so long no one here thinks I'm a potted plant, I'm OK with that. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, we know that's not true. Anyway, I also wanted to say real fast that in regards to this overall project -- as you know, this is something that I originally had denied some time back because I really, you know, had -- have had a real strong push to support industrial areas within my district. I also wanted to really make sure that the surrounding residents in the area were comfortable with the project, and originally, they were not, so after denying it, the developer has sat down and come up with something that makes sense for the neighborhood, and has really added some additional things that I think will benefit many of the City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 folks that are living in the Overtown area, and one of the other big concerns I had is that, you know, that was a big vacant piece -- parcel of land in the industrial area, which had absolutely nothing on it, and to see our kids that attend the local elementary school, Phillis Wheatley, have to pass it every single day. It's just time for something to happen there, so I wanted to at least be able to acknowledge, -- and I'm very happy with what we have in the project. I'd like for Lucia to at least -- though brief all the Commissioners on -- Lucia Dougherty: Certainly -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- where we are. Ms. Dougherty: -- and we certainly appreciate your direction and your leadership in this matter. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with Luis Dominguez and Victor Labruzzo, who are the principals. Again, this was a rezoning request, as well as a Major Use Special Permit that was initially denied and then brought back as a reconsideration, and that was as a result of working with the Commissioner's office and the community to get some different plans, as well as some conditions, which I'm going to put on the record. Just to show you the different plans. This is now 120-foot height building. This was originally a 17-story building; now it's 120 feet in height, and it is exactly the same height that you could build in the district today as an industrial project. This is the original building. Again, this is the modified building, and this is the building that we would ask to be put on the record that we would like this building approved, meaning the 120-foot building approved as opposed to the larger one. The staff has been re -- has reviewed, the Zoning staff the Planning staff as well as Public Works have reviewed this subsequent submission, and this is the one that we would urge the Commission to approve. In addition to that -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: IfI can just add real fast for my colleagues. One of the biggest issues that the community has -- if you look at the "before" picture and now the "after" -- is the taller side was kind of facing the community, the taller side where the school was, and people kind of felt that it was kind of creating almost like a fortress separating those folks from the folks that live in Overtown, so it was great to see that they were able to make that change to reduce it and make it more engaging towards -- in the community. Also the retail portion of it was really facing on 20th Street -- Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- which to me, I thought it was really important to kind of wrap that around so that those students that are, you know, going back and forth to school at Phillis Wheatley could see and be inspired by things that were going on from a retail perspective. I don't want to take everything away, but we really came up with some great stuff for the project. Commissioner Sarnoff Will you get your Starbucks in there? Ms. Dougherty: Maybe. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Hopefully. We need to call Magic. Go ahead. Ms. Dougherty: So it is a project that has retail surrounding the bottom floor, but let me just read, and I'm going to abbreviate this, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure. Ms. Dougherty: -- I've submitted for the record -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No problem. City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: -- conditions that we want included in our MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Commissioner Spence -Jones: No problem. Ms. Dougherty: One is a 4, 000-square foot retail space would be set aside for vocational training center for the culinary arts, performing arts, medical training, architecture, security, law enforcement, beauty, physical training, computer literacy, some other kind of training facility, so what we've done is set aside a 40 -- 4, 000-square foot portion of the building right across the street from Phillis Wheatley Elementary School, and we'll leave that available, and one other requirements is that we actually solicit a tenant to go in there that would do one of these things, in which we've agreed to do. Secondly, we've asked for ten -- we will set aside ten percent of our units; will be affordable housing units, and either as a rental or ownership. The City's going to work with us to try to find a methodology of actually subsidizing the unit owners, but we're going to make these affordable housing units available -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Below market. Ms. Dougherty: -- below market rate, correct. Then, again, we've agreed to reduce the height, have ground floor residential instead of live/work, all of which is part of the plans that we have submitted, and we're going to attach as a condition of the Major Use Special Permit. We've agreed to work with staff to ensure the maximum amount of urban -friendly -- pedestrian friendly uses on the ground floor. We've also put a roving, a sculpture garden here for local artists to be able to display sculpture on a rotating basis, so with that, we'd ask that the City Attorney accept these as conditions of the Major Use Special Permit, and I'm going to give it to you in a letter form. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I -- once again, I want to say thank you, and this is what it takes to really pull developers and communities together to create something that works for the people that are already there, and I just want to thank you guys for really sitting down. I think I have -- I see at least one of my Overtown residents here, Mr. Charles Cutler, that was a part of at least assisting with crafting this, and I think that this should really be a model of what we need to do to fry to encourage -- making sure that we spread some of this around, and the fact that they're adopting Phillis Wheatley Elementary School, you know, the fact that they're frying to at least make sure that they include some below market rate affordable housing units in this, and of course, making sure that they're not -- that whatever homeowners that go into this space, they're not burdened with the maintenance fee by at least reducing that, so we -- we're just thankful that you were able to sit down and come up with something that makes sense, so -- Ms. Dougherty: You make a good point. We did agree to pay the maintenance fee -- half of the maintenance fee for the first five years -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: -- for these affordable housing units. Commissioner Spence -Jones: For the first five years, which is great, so I really appreciate you guys able -- coming to some sort of conclusion for the community. Cutler one and Cutler two. Charles Cutler, Jr.: My name is Charles Cutler, 654 Northwest 10th Street. It's finally good to see a project that includes the Overtown residents, so I support this project a hundred percent. Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thanks. City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Charles Cutler, Sr.: Charles Cutler, 706 Northwest 4th Avenue. It's been a long time coming, but with all the components that they have that's in this project for the residents, I think that this should be a model for all the developers to follow this coming into Overtown. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Madam City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0. PZ.7 06-00155 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "I" INDUSTRIAL AND "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-00155 Legislation.pdf 06-00155 & 06-00155a Exhibit A.pdf 06-00155 Analysis.pdf 06-00155 & 06-00155b Zoning Map.pdf 06-00155, 06-00155a & 06-00155b Aerial Map.pdf 06-00155 ZB Reso.pdf 06-00155 ZB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 04-27-06.pdf 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 05-25-06.pdf 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-00155a & 06-00155 Reconsideration Letters.PDF 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 10-26-06.pdf 06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf 06-00155 CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00155 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management Corporation FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 23, 2006 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File IDs 06-00155a and 06-00155b. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed Avenue One Major Use Special Permit. NOTE: This item was reconsidered on October 12, 2006; see File ID 06-01663. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones 12876 Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.7. Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh. So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on it, please come up to the podium. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence -Jones. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Burns: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Regalado: He wants "yes." Sarnoff says he wants to -- Ms. Burns: And -- Commissioner Regalado: -- register -- Ms. Burns: -- Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Regalado: -- he wants to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't think he can -- Ms. Burns: He said "yes." Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- vote from the bathroom. Ms. Burns: OK. The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0. PZ.8 06-00155b RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE AVENUE ONE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED -USE TWO -TOWER DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET TO 180 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 349 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 7,875 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 633 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00155b Outside Cover.PDF 06-00155b Inside Cover.PDF 06-00155b Table of Contents.PDF 06-00155b Article I - Project Information.PDF 06-00155b Letter of Intent.PDF 06-00155b Zoning Write-Up.PDF 06-00155b Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF 06-00155b Zoning Atlas.PDF 06-00155b Project Data Sheet.PDF 06-00155b Deed-Computer.PDF 06-00155b Ownership List.PDF 06-00155b State of Florida Documents.PDF 06-00155b Directory of Project Principals.PDF 06-00155b Article II - Project Description.PDF 06-00155b Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF 06-00155b Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 06-00155b Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 06-00155b Site Utility Study.PDF 06-00155b Economic Impact Study.PDF 06-00155b Survey of Property.PDF 06-00155b Drawings Submitted.PDF 06-00155b Analysis.pdf 06-00155 & 06-00155b Zoning Map.pdf 06-00155, 06-00155a & 06-00155b Aerial Map.pdf 06-00155b PAB Reso.pdf 06-00155b Legislation.pdf 06-00155b Exhibit A.pdf 06-00155b Exhibit B.pdf 06-00155b Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00155b Submittal letter. pdf 06-00155b Submittal Petition Signatures.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management Corporation FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on February 1, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File IDs 06-00155 and 06-00155a. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Avenue One project. Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sarnoff R-07-0056 Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's another companion item, PZ.7. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.8. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.8. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 7 or 8? Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.8. Mr. Lavernia: 7 and 8. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Spence -Jones, PZ.8. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.8. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): My understanding -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wait. Ms. Chiaro: -- of the motion -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, wait. Staff has something that you want to add? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure. Mr. Lavernia: Is your motion with the conditions presented by Ms. Dougherty and the condition that the set of plans presented as part of the Major Use will be substitute for the new set of plan that she's presenting? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. We want to make sure this -- OK, you -- so it's officially on the record, right? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: We're substituting the item that we -- OK Chairman Gonzalez: With all the conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Second with all the conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: PZ.9. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.9. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Before they set up, you know, I hope that tomorrow the newspaper writes about this project because this is when they criticize our Administration and when they criticize us that sit up here for not affordable housing, and when you're able to get a Commissioner, with the support of the Commission, to sit down with the private sector and bring a project that is fully accepted by the residents, all right -- it is very hard to get everyone together to the table and get everyone to agree on everything, but this is something that we should all be very proud of because it really focuses on what Miami is fruly all about, but know tomorrow, the front page of the news is going to be the Mercy Hospital thing and, you know. PZ.9 06-01720ha RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL FILED BY RUBEN MATZ ("APPELLANT") AND AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 714 NORTHEAST 59TH STREET, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 06-01720ha Aerial Map.pdf 06-01720ha Appeal Letter.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Reso 2006-74.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 09-05-06.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 03-19-02.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 11-21-00.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 02-18-97.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Reso 93-12.pdf 06-01720ha HEPB Reso 91-44.pdf 06-01720ha Application & Pictures.pdf 06-01720ha Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01720ha Legislation (Version 3).pdf 06-01720ha CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 714 NE 59th Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Ruben Matz, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Denied the Certificate of Appropriateness on September 5, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will approve the installation of hedges not in compliance with an approved Certificate of Appropriateness. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Spence -Jones absent, to continue item PZ.9 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 8, 2007; further directing the Administration to meet with members of the Morningside Civic Association and its neighbors in an effort to reach a consensus in reference to the installation of hedges. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.9. Hi. Kathleen Kauffman: Hi. Good afternoon. Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Ms. Kauffman: Kathleen Kauffman, preservation officer for the City ofMiami. This is an applicant who has been to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board several times. They have requested that their hedge height be allowed at eight feet. That's not allowed in Morningside historic district. We have guidelines which set the hedge height, so several times the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, the HEP Board, has denied their request. They are appealing that decision, and that's why they're in front of you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Be careful what you ask for. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Santiago Echemendia: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Santiago Echemendia, 1441, on behalf of the Matz family, Ruben and Gladys, who are here, as well as my colleague, Amanda Quirke. As you can see from the picture in front of you, this is a beautiful home. We're here on an appeal from a denial of a certificate of appropriateness to permit some hedges that go up to eight feet;; what's permitted is five. However, as you will see, ifyou're on a corner lot, there is a procedure, and we got denied, and so we're here. The regulations really specifically talk about the front of the property, and as you can see from the picture in front of you, the front of this property is immaculate; it doesn't have hedges that obstruct. It talks about not locating fences and walls either along the front of the property line or between the sidewalk and the front facade, and that's clearly not the case here, as you can see from this picture in front of you. On corner lots, it is understood that you can request to have hedges because corner lots are more exposed, provided that it's historically appropriate to the house, or there are unique circumstances. Well, we submit to you that there are unique circumstances in this particular case. This is another picture of the home. This is the hedge on North Bayshore Drive. The Matzes have a number of security concerns. Apparently, a lot of the folks use North Bayshore Drive to access the park, Morningside Park, so folks are consistently walking by their side yard, rear yard throwing things over the hedges, and even currently -- and their hedges are pretty tall at this point -- throwing trash over the hedges. The exposure of their corner lot, of course, is of concern to them as well because they have about five grandchildren that spend a considerable amount of time in their backyard and their pool, and they want to prevent -- for security purposes, they want to shield their grandchildren, as well as for purposes of privacy. We believe that the higher hedges, -- you will see that it's not a small issue. In Morningside they're high hedges all over the place, and you probably heard that there are security concerns in Morningside and a number of burglaries on a fairly regular basis unfortunately. I'll show you pictures of a number of different homes in the Morningside district that also have hedges that exceed the five feet. We have a petition signed by 37 residents recognizing that higher hedges are a source of security and privacy in the Morningside area, and if we can submit those into the record, I would appreciate it. Let me show you a few of the homes in the Morningside area that have hedges that exceed the five feet, City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 and you can see this one here on North Bayshore Drive. You have 677 Northeast 60th Street. This is actually -- it appears to be in front of the home as well. Another home. Another home. Another home. It goes on and on. It seems to be pervasive in Morningside that there be hedges that exceed the five feet for one reason or another. At this point let me have Mr. Matz kind of share with you his story, and he's also going to read into the record a letter from one of his neighbors in support of the hedges. Ruben Matz: My name is Ruben Matz, owner of the property at 714 Northeast 59th Street. If I'm allowed, I just want to present the Commissioners with a letter. I -- on my way here, I was thinking "What am I going to tell the Board about our property and our conditions of a property?" And I thought it was best summarized by one of our neighbors who wrote me a letter because he couldn't be present, and here today we have five or six of the residents of Morningside, and three or four who had small children and had to leave earlier because it took longer than they expected, but the letter of one of the residents to me, and of course, he couldn't be here. He says, "Hedge of the home of Ruben and Gladys Matz. To whom it may concern: I'm writing this letter in support of my friends Ruben and Gladys Matz. I have the pleasure of living across the street from their home. The Matz family has one of the most beautiful homes in Morningside and inarguably the best manicured landscaping in the neighborhood. The hedge that seems to be in question does not in any way block the view of their home. It surrounds their pool area, creating not only a beautiful wall of vegetation, but a protective barrier for their property and family. This hedge, as well as the entire property, adds to the beauty of our street and the neighborhood. It seems outrageous to me that they should have to reduce the height or remove such beautiful greenery. If the hedge does, in fact, violate some rule, then the rule needs to be changed. I believe that any reasonable person who views this hedge would conclude the same thing. I suppose that some such rules may make sense in order to preserve the beauty of a historic neighborhood, by enforcing them blindly, or with a vengeance, discourages people from improving their property. Please make an exception for Mr. And Mrs. Matz's property, or better yet, change the rule so that it accommodate -- it can accommodate vegetation such as their beautiful hedge. Historic preservation is important to Morningside and our city, however in this case, its strict application will actually detract rather than reinforce the historic element of our neighborhood," and this is signed by Brad Peltzer, who is one of our neighbors, and I think I couldn't, myself put in better words what the sense of the entire neighborhood is about landscaping. Our landscaping is kept 365 days of the year, manicured to perfection. Morningside has 400 residents, and there is never a single resident that walks by that does not appreciate and even brag about the landscaping that we have brought to Morningside. I think it's -- it enhances the neighborhood, and it complies with the historic preservation. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chair, I believe we have some other folks in favor, if they want to come up now. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Each speaker will have two minutes. Sherna Brody: Hello, everybody. My name is Sherna Brody. I'm a resident since 1942 in Morningside, and I've seen the Matz house when it used to be owned by other people. It's really outstandingly beautiful now; there's no question about that. I'm in my third house in Morningside. One -- the last one I ended up with was my sister built and lived there with her family for 40 years and moved on to be closer to them. What I would say to you is that sometimes there's room for a variance, sometimes there's room for an exception. You know, everyone is a part of their time, and if we have a historic neighborhood, we're still part of history. This history is moving forward. This is a very enhanced property that makes Morningside look like a finer place than, believe me, it ever looked before, and so I would say to you that having received an 8-foot variance by the preservation board for a fence that we have on 55th Terrace for various reasons of safety and enhancement and looking like the rest of the City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 neighborhood and so on, I would also recommend the eight feet for the Matz family. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Errol Brown: My name is Errol Brown. I live at 520 Northeast 51 st Street, almost 23 years. I do know the Matz, so is other folks in the area that has hedging that exceeds the guidelines. If you want an introduction to heaven, believe you me, that house is, and I think it's personal why they're pushing it. You see, I'm a very plain, outspoken person. I live in Morningside. I have done many things there; it had never been addressed, or show any form of appreciation, and I seize the moment to express myself that it is ludicrous to have these people undergoing such stupid concern. It's more a personal thing, and I sincerely hope it could be upheld, giving the Matz the opportunity of keeping their hedge, because I also is into landscaping, and I know what beauty is all about. We have a problem in Morningside that needs to be addressed, a more pressing situation. Speeding in the area. I have spoken --I think I met Marc when he was canvassing, and we spoke right at my gate. Commissioner Sarnoff We did. Mr. Brown: They know all the stuff that I do in Morningside. This might be irrelevant, but this is a time to speak out. We have a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office up the road in Biscayne Boulevard; looks deplorable, and the fine folks ofMorningside would go by everyday and says nothing or do nothing. I took it upon myself -- I have purchased material, equipment; I went there. I clean it up. None of the folks in Morningside was nice enough to say "thank you," because it's Upper Eastside, and it's a wonderful job looking out for your area. They're a bunch of hypocrites. These people should never been here. I've spoken to them about speeding in the area; they does nothing about it. The civic association does what pleases them for their so-called close-knit friends. That's it. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Jon Koones: Hello. My name is Jon Koones. I reside at 547 Northeast 59th Sfreet. I'm here in strong support of the Matz's hedge height, and I think that this body and the historic board should have more pressing things to do than to spend unnecessary time and resources on the hedges at this property. The same terminologies that the historic board uses to enforce their various laws and regulations could very well be used to uphold the opposite viewpoint of the various laws or regulations that they deem required by us residents who live in a historic district. I've had a number of occasions to be present in their presence, and I found their demeanor somewhat disrespectful, and this is just another case of that. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Hi. Good morning. Good afternoon. Kevin Halvorsen: Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Halvorsen. I live at 581 Northeast 58th Sfreet, in the historic district ofMorningside. I'm actually a new resident ofMorningside. I purchased my home in September of 2006. I don't really know the Matzes all that well, but I do know that, in walking by their home, I get a lot of appreciation for the beauty of the landscaping in general of the community. I noticed, before I purchased my home, that a lot of residents have made and continue to make improvements to their homes and landscapings. These improvements, in my opinion, continue to make the neighborhood a unique place to live; it helps to improve property values collectively. I personally enjoy walking through the neighborhood with family and friends and appreciate the architecture and landscaping of the community. I also think that the Matz's landscaping is complimentary to the home; it helps to improve the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. I hope the Commission can appreciate the beauty of this property and realize that the level of care and attention paid to this home can serve as an inspiration to other residents. I would find it disturbing to think that we would be blinded by the City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 -- by a tape measure that would destroy something as nice as this. I would ask that the Commission to allow the Matzes to continue to allow and maintain their property in its present condition. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Ms. Kauffman: Wait. May I make a few more -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Ms. Kauffman: -- may I just follow up -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Kauffman: -- with a few of the comments I heard? They showed you some photos of other properties within the district. If the hedge is exceeding the height that's allowed, there's two possibilities. It's grandfathered in because it was already there when the disfrict came into place. We don't make people cut their hedges down if it was already there when the district was created. Code Enforcement has been working very closely with us in order to try and cite the rest of the people that have exceeded the heights, and most of them have come into compliance. There are a few cases still out there that they haven't come into compliance, but Code Enforcement is working diligently on it. The guidelines for each historic district are not something arbitrary that the City comes up with. When each district was created, the City worked with that neighborhood association to create guidelines specific to their own district. That's why the heights of hedges are different for Morningside than they are for Buena Vista East or for Spring Garden. Each of these districts worked with the City to come up with these guidelines, so when the disfrict was created, that is what that neighborhood wanted for them. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I have a question. Could the homeowners amend that if they --? Ms. Kauffman: What we advise people who call in to complain about the hedge heights, or they don't like the guidelines, we advise them to work with the civic association or the homeowners association, and if enough of them want to change it, the homeowners association will come to us, and we work with them to change the guidelines, but we will take it to the HEP Board if the homeowners association is behind it. We can't take it to the HEP Board every time an individual person wants to change the guidelines. Commissioner Sarnoff Let me ask you a question because -- it's in regards to -- I think they're trying to come under an exception, and I think the exception they're trying to come under -- Can you go back to that on your --? Mr. Echemendia: It's -- Mr. Sarnoff -- Commissioner Sarnoff, it's unique circumstances -- it's the unique circumstances that include, in this case -- Commissioner Sarnoff Who did -- who made a determination that unique circumstances did not exist? Mr. Echemendia: The Historic Environmental -- Commissioner Sarnoff Preservation. Mr. Echemendia: -- Preservation Board. I'm not sure that the -- Ms. Kauffman: Well, actually -- City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Echemendia: -- argument was -- Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): That's correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And they voted 6/0? That's -- Ms. Chiaro: Yes. Ms. Kauffman: Yes. They've been in front of the preservation board several times, the first being in December of 2000, and at that time the preservation board told them they could have their hedges at a height of three and a half feet. When they came back in March of 2002, they had already exceeded that height of what the preservation board had allowed. They were already at five feet, and they were requesting eight feet. The preservation board said, "Well, no, you can't have eight feet, but because of your special circumstances of being on the corner, you can maintain them at five feet," so they've let them maintain them at five feet. They came back in 2006, again, requesting the eight feet. Commissioner Sarnoff What does the rule say with regard to hedges? I mean, what's the height? Ms. Kauffman: Five feet along the sides -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Ms. Kauffman: -- eight feet in the back, no hedges in the front. Commissioner Sarnoff And this is considered the front? Ms. Kauffman: It is a main facade. Commissioner Sarnoff I'm sorry? Ms. Kauffman: It is a main facade. Corner properties, under zoning, or any pro -- any side of the building that faces a street is considered a main facade. Commissioner Sarnoff And that would -- and just help me on that little interpretation. That would mean -- Ms. Chiaro: That's considered to be -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- how high could they go? Ms. Chiaro: -- the front. Commissioner Sarnoff The front. Mr. Echemendia: Yeah. Can I clarify a second, ifI may, a little rebuttal? Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Echemendia: I'm having to rebut staff which is kind of unusual because staff is acting more as an advocate on an appeal than they are in simply giving a staff recommendation, it seems. The -- what was originally approved was five feet, and that's the original approval, not three and a half as she stated. All we're asking is the difference between five and eight, which has been City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 granted before, and the exceptions may be authorized for any corner lot relative to rear, side, what have you, as long as -- may be authorized if historically appropriate to the particular house or unique circumstances exist. We submit to you that the unique circumstance in this case is that it's on North Bayshore Drive, which is heavy with pedestrian traffic accessing Morningside Drive. Moreover, if you will notice, we're talking about three feet. In this beautiful home, those three feet will, in no way, detract from the historical integrity of the home, the facade of which is clearly unobstructed and will provide security for the property owner and his grandchildren. I would submit to you that in balancing those, and with respect to this particular site and the pristine condition that it's in, and specifically, with respect to leaving the facade of the historic home unobstructed, there are unique circumstances, and we would implore you to approve this appeal. Commissioner Sarnoff What's the standard we're supposed to employ, an abusive discretion standard, or what is our standard that we apply? Ms. Chiaro: This is a de novo hearing. You can -- Commissioner Sarnoff So we hear it brand-new -- Ms. Chiaro: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and we are now the arbiters of what's right and wrong? Ms. Chiaro: That is correct. You may take the recommendations -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: This is the first time in nine years that I've had something like this in front of us. Ms. Chiaro: -- from staff the recommendations from the lower board, and any testimony that you heard today, giving it the weight that you deem appropriate. Mr. Echemendia: And ifI can add, Commissioner, ifI may, through the Chair? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Echemendia: IfI can add. If -- the issue really is is there competent substantial evidence in the record, which we think we have proffered, to sustain a decision that there are, in fact, unique circumstances, i.e., North Bayshore Drive, heavy traffic, things being thrown over, et cetera, et cetera. We're talking about three feet on probably, I hate to say, the most beautiful home in Morningside because there're a lot of beautiful homes, but certainly the most uniquely manicured as it relates to the landscaping. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I have been here eight years, and I -- nothing like this has ever come in front of us, this board. I mean -- Chairman Gonzalez: I wonder why does this come in front of us. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but since we're on the issue, I mean -- are you guys -- is it closed? Is it coming to the Commission? Mr. Echemendia: I guess that was my rebuttal and my plea that you approve -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We're closing the public hearing; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado: IfI may, Mr. -- Oh, sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: Vice Chairman Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Matz, sir, you have a beautiful home. Mr. Matz: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You have a very beautiful home. Mr. Matz: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Unfortunately, you live in a neighborhood that has a well established historical district with rules. Mr. Matz: May I add something else? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sure. Mr. Matz: The young lady said something about the civic association. One of my neighbors, who's an attorney, Bruce Wile, has mentioned to me -- unfortunately, he couldn't be here today -- that he has tried, in more than 20 occasions -- and I even have e-mails (electronic mail) -- to reach the president of the civic association trying -- for all the young neighbors who live in our community -- to change the guidelines -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And -- Mr. Matz: -- and he has never, ever -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that's -- Mr. Matz: -- responded to it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the avenue that I think really -- I mean, it's -- you -- your neighborhoods created it; you can amend it, but to put us in a situation where you're going to come in front of us, what's to prevent, you know -- and it's -- I mean, it's -- people don't understand that a historic district can be very, very complicated, but it has its pros and its cons. I mean, your community is beautiful because it's protected; it has rules and regulations -- Mr. Matz: And this will make it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but -- Mr. Matz: -- even prettier than it is. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- between you and me, I mean, I would be worried about other things besides hedges -- Mr. Matz: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but I certainly don't want to be put -- City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Me, too. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in that situation where you followed the process, and you went in front of the HEP board, and the board denied it 6/0, and now -- Mr. Matz: I have -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it's in front of us. Mr. Matz: -- to add one more thing that she did not mention. I've been only once in front of HEP, which was last year, and the year before, when I was cited by Code Enforcement, I was here, and Code Enforcement approved this hedges. They approved it. If you look back -- she never mentioned it. Code Enforcement, which she says is on top of everything, was here, and I was approved by Code Enforcement. You can look in the records. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just hope -- I just would hope that you are able to gather with all those that signed the signature, you have people that are willing to support you on the issue, and sit with your neighbors, and fry -- Mr. Matz: But not even -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to work this out -- Mr. Matz: -- the president -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- instead of coming -- Mr. Matz: -- of the civic association -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in front of us. Mr. Matz: -- doesn't respond to us. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, then, you should run for president then, or you should have someone in your neighborhood, you know, run for president, butt mean, to put us in this situation -- Mr. Echemendia: IfI may, Commissioner Sanchez, just through the Chair a second. This is just like any other appeal that regularly comes in front of you from the Zoning Board or any other body that's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Echemendia: -- lower. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it's -- listen. Mr. Echemendia: It's really no different. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but you know what? We live in a nation of laws and rules, and that association, which is their association, established those rules, and what's to say that today it's hedges; tomorrow it's not awnings or whatever? Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner Sanchez, it is significant, though, that you haven't had one City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 person in opposition. Everybody in the neighborhood is in favor, including 36 residents who live there. I mean, even Elvis is sitting down and hasn't opposed this application for God sakes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, you know what? You -- Mr. Echemendia: I mean, don't give him the opportunity now, but -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, but wait, wait -- Mr. Echemendia: -- I mean, I think -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- wait. Mr. Echemendia: -- that's significant. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, but listen, listen, but wait a minute. Maybe he needs to stand up and state his position, since he is so involved in the Morningside Homeowner [sic] Association, because the people that are here -- -- and you know, I sympathize with you. I mean, I sympathize with you. I mean, I'm -- once again, I want to make it very clear. I would be worried about other things besides how big my brush around the houses are. Elvis, I'll yield to you. Elvis Cruz: There are many residents who are in favor of maintaining the hedges at the height at which it is now. They are not here, and I did not speak out of respect for Mr. Matz because it's a very socially, awkward thing for neighbor to go up against neighbor, and the only reason I'm standing at the microphone is because I was singled out and, essentially, put on the spot. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But this Commission did not impose -- government should not even get involved on that, to be honest with you, because you impose that in your homeowner association. When I was president of the homeowners association in the Roads, they started to talk about a historic -- in the first meeting that we had, people were smart enough to be asking a lot of questions, and when people found out that if you're going to -- you -- that becomes an historical disfrict and you're going to change a window, and your window was in 1935, you have to get that window, somebody said, "You're out of your mind, " so -- but once again, it does have its pros and cons. I'm not going to argue with you. Mr. Cruz: Commissioner Sanchez, ifI can give you 30 seconds of history. On December 20, 1984, Morningside became the City ofMiami's first historic disfrict. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm aware of that. Mr. Cruz: It has done wonderful things for our neighborhood. For at least the past 15 years, I have asked the Planning departments to please produce a document, a pamphlet, a booklet that, in very simple language, with pictures, shows exactly what the rules are. The problem is we have a lot of new residents that have come into the neighborhood, and they don't get that information, and very sadly, the first time that some of them hear about what the rules are is when they get a letter in the mail, so I would hope that the -- Commissioner Sarnoff Can I -- Mr. Cruz: -- regulations are upheld and -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- make a suggestion? Mr. Cruz: -- that the City produce an informative booklet for the neighbors. City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff Can I make a suggestion that we defer this item; ask the historic preservation officer to go to a Morningside meeting; to come back to us and let us know what the desires are of the -- of that particular association, and we'll have this record before us, and we can then vote right there. I just -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Sarnoff -- I hate to see neighbor versus neighbor -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- and I hate to see -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and we shouldn't get involved in those -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- disputes between neighbors. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- motion on the floor. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: I will second that, and I -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: -- think it's a great idea. I think that our -- Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion to defer PZ.9, and we have a second, and -- Ms. Chiaro: To what --? Chairman Gonzalez: -- the instruction is to go back to the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Defer. Chairman Gonzalez: -- neighborhood and have a neighborhood association meeting, and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Who are you, sir? Chairman Gonzalez: -- come back -- William Hopper: President of the neighborhood association. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, come on up. We were waiting for you. Commissioner Regalado: Well, he's here. Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- but we already -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah -- City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but the item has been deferred, giving you opportunity to sit down with the neighbors and see if you could work it out. I mean, it's -- Mr. Hopper: We've been trying for four years. Vice Chairman Sanchez: For four years? Mr. Hopper: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What is this, The War of the Roses? Commissioner Sarnoff The war of the hedges. Mr. Hopper: In fact, we worked with the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: For four years -- Mr. Hopper: Well, we've -- in terms of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and I thought we had problems here at the City. Mr. Hopper: Since two thous -- I believe the fall of 2000. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: My God. Ms. Burns: We need your name for -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This -- Ms. Burns: -- the record, please. Mr. Hopper: I'm sorry. My name is William Hopper. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Four years over hedges. Chairman Gonzalez: -- this -- Mr. Hopper: I reside at 527 Northeast 56th Street -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Four years over hedges. Mr. Hopper: -- and I'm president of the Morningside Civic Association. Chairman Gonzalez: The district Commissioner just made a decision to defer the item and send the board to the neighborhood to meet with the neighbors and come back and give us some guidance on what the neighbors feel about this issue, and then we will vote on the item, so -- Ms. Chiaro: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: -- we have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Ms. Chiaro: Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right, and I'm going to be taking the last two items before -- yes, ma'am. Mr. Hopper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Chiaro: Did you defer this to a particular date? Commissioner Sarnoff I -- no. We'll let them work it out. Chairman Gonzalez: March, I guess. Commissioner Sarnoff Let's not put it in February, right? Teresita Fernandez (Executive Secretary, Hearing Boards): OK. If you don't -- Chairman Gonzalez: Because February is going to be -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. We already have agenda. Chairman Gonzalez: At the rate that we're going, we're going to need two months of February - Commissioner Sarnoff Exactly. Ms. Fernandez: They have to pay. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so to March. Ms. Fernandez Let -- Chairman Gonzalez: First meeting in March. Ms. Fernandez The -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Fernandez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: But the motion was for the historical -- Commissioner Sarnoff Preservation. Commissioner Regalado: -- preservation -- Chairman Gonzalez: Preservation. Commissioner Regalado: -- officer -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- to meet -- City ofMiami Page 111 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: With the neighbors. Commissioner Regalado: -- with the association, with -- and give us a report. That was the motion. Ms. Chiaro: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be a stickler for procedure. If it is not deferred to a date certain, the item has to be readvertised, and the appellate must pay for the re -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK, ma'am -- Ms. Chiaro: -- advertisement. Chairman Gonzalez: -- I think I said for the first meeting in March. Ms. Chiaro: Thank you. I didn't hear you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am, I did. Vice Chairman Sanchez: In all fairness. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I'm going to be taking the last two items before -- Commissioner Regalado: And besides -- correction. We had, many years ago, more people and more controversy about a similar case with the Stallonegate, and I remem -- I was here. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You've been here that long? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I was here. I was here with the Stallonegate. We had 400 people here. Chairman Gonzalez: Four hundred people. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's like 14 years ago. PZ.10 05-00767 ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2865 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 05-00767 Legislation.pdf 05-00767 & 05-00767a Exhibit A.pdf 05-00767 Analysis.pdf 05-00767 Land Use Map.pdf 05-00767 & 05-00767a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00767 School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 05-00767 PAB Reso.pdf 05-00767 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00767 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00767 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2865 SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Kon N. Lee, President, on behalf of Four Dragons, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 20, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 05-00767a. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12877 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.10 and PZ.11, which are companion. Is there anyone in opposition to PZ.9 and PZ.10? These items are in Allapattah and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: 10 and 11. Chairman Gonzalez: -- almost positive that they will be -- Commissioner Sarnoff 10 and 11, Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: Huh? Commissioner Regalado: 10 and 11. Commissioner Sarnoff 10 and 11. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry, 10 and 11, you're right. 10 and 11. Sorry. Commissioner Regalado: It's in District 4, and it's second reading. Chairman Gonzalez: It's second reading. Anyone in opposition on PZ.10 and 11? OK, I see no opposition. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Let him -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Make a motion. No. This is second reading already. Chairman Gonzalez: This is second reading. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Yes, it's second reading. It was presented completely at first reading, yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: We had a full presentation on the first meeting, is that correct, because I don't -- Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- even remember, going through so many items? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: I -- Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second. Commissioner Regalado: -- move to approve on second reading. Chairman Gonzalez: It's an ordinance. No, it's -- PZ.10 is a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." Commissioner Regalado: No. PZ.10 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Oh, no, it's an ordinance. Commissioner Regalado: -- is an ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: No. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. Commissioner Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE) one at a time. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Read the ordinance into the record -- Chairman Gonzalez: It's an ordinance. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Madam Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.10 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.10. Chairman Gonzalez: -- is an ordinance. City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): PZ.10. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I made a mistake. I made a mistake. PZ.10 and 11 are your items. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: So -- all right. Good. No, because I said those items are in Allapattah. Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no. You're talking of the next two. Chairman Gonzalez: The next one, OK Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: -- that's what I said, it's second reading, and we had the presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so Madam City Clerk. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.11 05-00767a ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2865 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 05-00767a Legislation.pdf 05-00767 & 05-00767a Exhibit A.pdf 05-00767a Analysis.pdf 05-00767a Zoning Map.pdf 05-00767 & 05-00767a Aerial Map.pdf 05-00767a ZB Reso.pdf 05-00767a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00767a FR Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00767a SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2865 SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Kon N. Lee, President, on behalf of Four Dragons, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Made a recommendation of approval, which failed due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes, constituting a recommendation of denial to City Commission on September 12, 2005 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 05-00767. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12878 Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.11 is also a second reading. Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's also an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.12 06-01058Iu ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 AND 2930 NORTHWEST 22ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM -DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-010581u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010581u - Analysis.pdf 06-010581u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-010581u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-010581u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-010581u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-010581u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-010581u Letter of Intent.pdf 06-010581u - Application Documents.pdf 06-01058zc Warranty Deeds.pdf 06-010581u PAB Reso.PDF 06-010581u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010581u & 06-01058zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-010581u CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010581u CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 and 2930 NW 22nd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Suzanne Besu, Esquire and Bob de la Fuente, Esquire, on behalf of Santo Antonio Holdings, Inc., Contract Purchaser FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor to the City Commission on July 19, 2006 by a vote of 4-5. See companion File ID 06-01058zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12879 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.12. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: That's the one in Allapattah. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.12 is the one in Allapattah. Is there anyone in opposition here for PZ.12 and PZ.13? All right. Seeing none, hearing none, I'm closing the public hearing. Would you make a motion? Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chair, PZ.12. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion -- Commissioner Sarnoff Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. It's an ordinance, Madam City Clerk [sic]. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. PZ.13 06-01058zc ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 19, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 AND 2930 NORTHWEST 22ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-01058zc Analysis.pdf 06-01058zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-01058zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01058zc Letter of Intent.pdf 06-01058zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01058zc ZB 09-11-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01058zc ZB 11-13-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01058zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01058zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010581u & 06-01058zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-01058zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01058zc CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 LOCATION: Approximately 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 and 2930 NW 22nd Avenue [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Suzanne Besu, Esquire and Bob de la Fuente, Esquire, on behalf of Santo Antonio Holdings, Inc., Contract Purchaser FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 13, 2006 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 06-010581u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12880 Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.13 is also -- requires also a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on PZ.13, please come forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion -- Commissioner Sarnoff Second, I'm sorry. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Madam City Attorney, it's an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: All right. PZ.14 06-01403zt ORDINANCE Second Reading City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN DRI AREA; PROVIDING FOR A HEIGHT INCREASE FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC PARKING IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-01403zt - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01403zt - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-01403zt PAB Reso.pdf 06-01403zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01403zt CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01403zt CC SR Fact Sheet 12-14-06.pdf 06-01403zt CC SR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommend approval to City Commission on September 6, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: This will provide a height increase for public parking in excess of the required off-street parking requirements in the C-2 zoning district when located within the Urban Central Business District outside of the Downtown DRI. CONTINUED Item PZ.14 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 22, 2007. PZ.15 06-01057zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-20.1" EDGEWATER OVERLAY DISTRICT AND "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, WITH AN INCREASE OF THE F.A.R. TO 3.0, TO "SD-6" CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND "SD-20.1" EDGEWATER OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1756 AND 1770 NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE, AND 1751-61-71-77 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-01057zc Analysis.pdf 06-01057zc ZB Zoning Map.pdf 06-01057zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01057zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01057zc Application & Supporting Docs #2.pdf 06-01057zc ZB Fact Sheet 07-10-06.pdf 06-01057zc ZB Fact Sheet 09-11-06.pdf 06-01057zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01057zc CC Zoning Map.pdf 06-01057zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01057zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-01057zc CC FR Fact Sheet 10-26-06.pdf 06-01057zc CC FR Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf 06-01057zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1756 and 1770 NE 4th Avenue, and 1751-61-71-77 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of V Downtown, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 11, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential District and SD-20.1 Edgewater Overlay District. CONTINUED Item PZ.15 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.16 06-00830Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1000 SOUTHWEST 30TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM -DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-008301u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-008301u - Analysis.pdf 06-008301u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-008301u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-008301u - Zoning Map.PDF 06-008301u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-008301u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-008301u - Application Documents.pdf 06-008301u PAB Reso.PDF 06-008301u CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 06-008301u & 06-00830zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-008301u CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1000 SW 30th Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Fernando and Flor Garcia Tuon FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 18, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-00830zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Medium Density Multifamily Residential. CONTINUED Item PZ.16 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.17 06-00830zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 40, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1000 SOUTHWEST 30TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-00830zc Analysis.pdf 06-00830zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-00830zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-00830zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00830zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00830zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-00830zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-008301u & 06-00830zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-00830zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 LOCATION: Approximately 1000 SW 30th Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Fernando and Flor Garcia Tuon FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 30, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File ID 06-008301u. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential. CONTINUED Item PZ.17 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.18 06-01238Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2735 AND 2745 NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND A PORTION OF 2700 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-012381u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-012381u - PAB Analysis.pdf 06-012381u - PAB Concurrency Report.pdf 06-012381u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-012381u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-012381u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-012381u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-012381u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-012381u PAB Reso.PDF 06-012381u CC Analysis.PDF 06-012381u CC Concurrency.PDF 06-012381u CC Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 06-012381u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-012381u 06-01238zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-012381u CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-012381u CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2735 and 2745 NW 14th Street and a Portion of 2700 NW 15th Street [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 APPLICANT(S): Matthew V. Rigg, President, on behalf of 1490 Plus, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on September 20, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 06-01238zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I have an item which is -- supposedly, it's not going to be controversial, PZ.18. I'm trying to clean up the agenda as much as I can. PZ.18. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I thought that was pulled. Chairman Gonzalez: No. That's an item in my district, butt have certain concerns. This is an R-Z lot -- Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- OK? Mr. Lavernia: The request is from R-2 to C-1. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. If we grant C-1, they will be able to build a building in that lot? Mr. Lavernia: Unless that they proffer a covenant saying that the only thing that they are going to build in that lot is duplex, which is the designation that they have today. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you. The only thing that I'm going to support there is a duplex, whatever we used to have there before, because that's duplex and residential, and I will not -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: 18. Commissioner Spence -Jones: 18? Chairman Gonzalez: -- support or approve a building next to a duplex or a residence, so -- Mr. Lavernia: The building that is -- that already is facing 27th Avenue, between 15 -- 14 and 15. There's an existing building in there that have parking on the back. The parking -- Chairman Gonzalez: One -- Mr. Lavernia: -- is grandfathered in without the zoning designation, the proper zoning designation. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. What we have there is we have a children and family building on the Mr. Lavernia: Exactly. Chairman Gonzalez: -- corner -- City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Lavernia: Exactly. Chairman Gonzalez: -- of 15 and 27. Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Then we have a gas station. Behind the build -- the children and family building we have a parking lot. Mr. Lavernia: That's the applicant that you have in front of you today requesting to legalize the use of parking in there and adding two lots. We fried to work with an SD-12 in order for him to legalize the parking, but he can't comply with the condition of SD-12 because he cannot provide the access form the commercial area or the 20 feet that they have in there, so -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. What I need, the bottom line, is protection for the residents, for the owners of the duplex and the residences. Mr. Lavernia: So I'm going to give the applicant -- Chairman Gonzalez: You provide me protection for those residents, and I'll -- you know, I'll move it. If not -- Mr. Lavernia: The applicant is going to put on the record that the only thing that they are going to build in there is duplex uses and parking. Commissioner Regalado: Well, I move the ordinance, in behalf of the Chairman, with a covenant. Vice Chairman Sanchez: With a what? Chairman Gonzalez: With a covenant. Commissioner Regalado: Especially the terms of the -- Chairman Gonzalez: Parking lot. Commissioner Regalado: -- only duplex or parking. Chairman Gonzalez: Or parking. Matthew Rigg: Correct, correct. I'll make this very brief, I know you're in a hurry. The two lots that we are requesting to add to our existing parking are adjacent to that parking, and they're adjacent to another duplex lot which is also complying as a parking lot, so our immediate neighbors on one side is the street, on the other side is a parking lot, and on the other side is a parking lot. There is a duplex immediately west of us, and I might add that one of our employees lives in that duplex. You know, all of our -- we've had to go through a long process, Zoning and Planning. I don't want C-1. I don't want to build buildings. All I want to do is put a parking lot and expand my parking lot for the Department of Children and Families -- Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Sorry. I -- Mr. Rigg: -- and I have covenant. I had presented a covenant, which says we will only use it for R-2 and/or for parking, and it's been approved by all of the City -- City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: If they ever decide that they want to do something different, they will have to come back to this Commission, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for the record, would you state your name and address? Mr. Rigg: Sorry. My name is Matthew Rigg. I'm president of 1490 Plus, Inc., which is a corporation which owns both the two lots -- actually, there are two corporations, but we have unity of title between the building and the parking lot behind it, which is a single lot, but only the front hundred feet of it is zoned commercial. Because the back part was zoned R-2, but has been complying legally as a parking lot for over 30 years. It was Janet Reno's office, so we are adjacent to other R-2 zoned lots -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Rigg: -- but they had been used as parking and legally for the past -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I would -- Mr. Rigg: -- 20 or 30 years. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- second it, with the condition that has been proffered by the maker of the motion, and therefore, you still have to go through all the permits and stuff so all right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's an ordinance, but before reading the ordinance, is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on this item? Please come forward to be recognized. All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Recess. Chairman Gonzalez: Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Madam City Attorney, read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Ms. Burns: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been approved on first reading, 5/0. Is that with modifications? Chairman Gonzalez: With the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: With the conditions. Ms. Chiaro: No, no. City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: Covenant. Mr. Lavernia: With a covenant. Chairman Gonzalez: With a covenant that has been proffered. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Lavernia: There's no modification. It's approval with the covenant. Chairman Gonzalez: With the covenant. Mr. Lavernia: Accepting the covenant. Chairman Gonzalez: Accepting the covenant, OK. PZ.19 06-01238zc ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 26, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2735 AND 2745 NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND A PORTION OF 2700 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-01238zc CC Analysis.pdf 06-01238zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-01238zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01238zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01238zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01238zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01238zc CC Analysis.PDF 06-01238zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-012381u 06-01238zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-01238zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01238zc CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf First Reading LOCATION: Approximately 2735 and 2745 NW 14th Street and a Portion of 2700 NW 15th Street [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Matthew V. Rigg, President, on behalf of 1490 Plus, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 30, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 06-012381u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Commissioner Regalado: PZ.19. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We -- Commissioner Regalado: 19 is the companion. Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Commissioner Spence -Jones: 19 is the companion. Commissioner Regalado: Has a companion. Chairman Gonzalez: There is a companion? Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Yes, sir. 19 is the companion item. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. 19. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on the item, please come forward to be recognized. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Read the ordinance, please. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Commissioner Regalado: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been approved on first reading, 5/0. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. We're going to be taking a recess. For those that are here for the other items, the rest of the agenda, except PZ.37 and PZ.38, is going to be continued until February 22, so those that are here for other items need to know that they won't be heard today; there won't be time, and at 10 p.m. tonight we will adjourn, so we're going to open at 5 o'clock PZ.37 and PZ.38, and we're going to be here until 10 p.m. Ten p.m. we will adjourn. Thank you. We're going to take a 15-minute recess. PZ.20 06-01433zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 14, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 APPROXIMATELY 621-625 AND 645 NORTHEAST 64TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-01433zc Analysis.pdf 06-01433zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-01433zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01433zc Application & Supporting Docs. pdf 06-01433zc ZB 10-30-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01433zc ZB 11-13-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01433zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01433zc Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01433zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-01433zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 621-625 and 645 NE 64th Terrace [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire, on behalf of Grec Luis Development, Ltd., Contract Purchaser, and Grec/Luis II, Ltd. and Terra Urbana, Ltd., Owners FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 13, 2006 by a vote of 6-1. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential with an SD-12 Buffer Overlay District. CONTINUED Item PZ.20 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.21 06-02104zt PAB RESOLUTION AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 626, "SD-26" 22ND AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT; IN ORDER TO CREATE THE "SD-26" 22ND AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, ADD AN INTENT STATEMENT, CREATE SPECIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON USES, AND TO REQUIRE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMITS FOR EXTERIOR WORK; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-02104zt - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-02104zt - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-02104zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-02104zt CC FR Fact Sheet 12-14-06.pdf 06-02104zt CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Pending recommendation on February 21, 2007. See companion File ID 06-02104zc. PURPOSE: This will create the SD-26 22nd Avenue Special Overlay District and add special district requirements. CONTINUED Item PZ.21 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.22 06-02104zc PAB RESOLUTION AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S) AMENDING PAGE NO. 34, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-26" 22ND AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ALONG 22ND AVENUE BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET AND NORTHWEST 1ST STREET (COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND ADDRESSES ON FILE WITH HEARING BOARDS); MIAMI, FLORIDA, MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-02104zc- PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-02104zc - SD-26 Special District Zoning.pdf 06-02104zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-02104zc - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-02104zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-02104zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-02104zc CC FR Fact Sheet 12-14-06.pdf 06-02104zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami LOCATION: Approximately Along 22nd Avenue Between SW 8th Street and NW 1st Street [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3] FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Pending recommendation on February 21, 2007. See companion File ID 06-02104zt. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commercial with an SD-26 22nd Avenue Special Overlay District. CONTINUED Item PZ.22 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.23 06-02044zt ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 606, CONCERNING THE SD-6, SD-6.1 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO PERMIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES LOCATED IN A BUILDING THAT IS 150 FEET OR LESS FROM A MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AS ADAPTIVE RE -USE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS BY CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT, AND SECTION 615 CONCERNING SD-15 RIVER QUADRANT MIXED -USE DISTRICT IN ORDER TO PERMIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES LOCATED IN A BUILDING THAT IS 150 FEET OR LESS FROM A MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY BY CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT; AND ALSO IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTION IN THE SD-15 DISTRICT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-02044zt - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-02044zt - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-02044zt PAB Reso.PDF 06-02044zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-02044zt CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommendation approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to the City Commission on November 15, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. PURPOSE: This will allow certain public storage facilities by Class II Special Permit in the SD-6, SD-6.1 and SD-15 zoning districts and will modify the affordable housing contribution in the SD-15 district. CONTINUED Item PZ.23 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.24 06-02178 ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, CREATING A NEW SUBSECTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 9 ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS," SECTION 906, ENTITLED "ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES," PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 509.233, RELATED TO PUBLIC FOOD SERVICE City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 ESTABLISHMENTS, PROVIDING FOR A THREE-YEAR DOG -FRIENDLY DINING PILOT PROGRAM TO ALLOW DOGS IN APPROVED OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS OF SUCH FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR NECESSARY ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-02178 - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-02178 - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-02178 PAB Reso.PDF 06-02178 CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-02178 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-02178 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 6, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. PURPOSE: This will allow dogs in approved outdoor seating areas. Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chairman, is there any way that we could hear PZ.24? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. It's non -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, that's the one -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- controversial, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that dog lovers are howling all over? Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, you are exactly. Chairman Gonzalez: It's not -- that's not controversial (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ? Commissioner Sarnoff That's not what? Chairman Gonzalez: Controversial? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Commissioner Sarnoff No, no. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.24. Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: -- controversial, the cats -- Chairman Gonzalez: The cats are going to be complaining, right? Commissioner Regalado: -- will be against it. Chairman Gonzalez: Will be complaining. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, because -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- hear the cat -- Commissioner Regalado: -- it's only for dogs. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- lobbyists are furious. Commissioner Sarnoff There's an equal protection argument here. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ. 24. Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): PZ. 24 is an ordinance that incorporates the standards in state law, which allows for restaurants with certain outdoor dining areas to apply for a permit to permit dogs to dine with their owners -- I'm sorry, to permit dogs, with their owners, at restaurants if the restaurant has a permit and has submitted the requirements under the ordinance. This was requested by the Commission. It went to the PAB (Planning Advisory Board). It had -- it was approved at the Planning Advisory Board. It needs to be part of your land use regulations. It is thus on your Planning & Zoning agenda, and we would like to add, when it comes back to you on second reading, if it's approved on first reading, that the permits be approved through a Class I process. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that's a three-year pilot program for man's best friend, 21 dogy years. Commissioner Regalado: And besides -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No pun intended. Commissioner Regalado: -- you know, this is a state law. Ms. Chiaro: It's the -- Commissioner Regalado: The state has passed -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff Correct, the enabling legislation. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Listen, I would move the item. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion -- City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. I guess it's a resolution, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would raise my paw. Ms. Chiaro: It is an ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Ms. Chiaro: It's an ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: It's an ordinance? OK. Read the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Spence Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff On behalf ofXena, Zoe, Plug, Buddy, and in memory of Petey, yes. Commissioner Regalado: Wow. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Whoof. Yes. Ms. Burns: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has passed on first reading, 5/0. PZ.25 06-00397Iu ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 21-23 & 31-33 SOUTHWEST 52ND COURT AND 20-22 & 30-32 SOUTHWEST 52ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM -DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; First Reading City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-003971u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-003971u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-003971u - Analysis.pdf 06-003971u - PAB Concurrency Report.pdf 06-003971u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-003971u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-003971u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-003971u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-003971u PAB Reso.pdf 06-003971u CC Concurrency Report.PDF 06-003971u CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-003971u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-003971u & 06-00397zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-003971u CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 21-23 & 31-33 SW 52nd Court and 20-22 & 30-32 SW 52nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Rick D. Ruiz, on behalf of Francisco & Teresa Permuy and Guillermo Permuy, Owners FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on June 7, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-00397zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. CONTINUED Item PZ.25 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.26 06-00397zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 31, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 21-23 & 31-33 SOUTHWEST 52ND COURT AND 20-22 & 30-32 SOUTHWEST 52ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-00397zc Analysis.pdf 06-00397zc ZB Zoning Map.pdf 06-00397zc ZB Aerial Map.pdf 06-00397zc ZB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00397zc ZB 07-10-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00397zc ZB 09-25-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00397zc ZB 10-16-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00397c ZB Reso.PDF 06-00397zc CC Zoning Map.pdf 06-00397zc CC Aerial Map.pdf 06-00397zc CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00397zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-003971u & 06-00397zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-00397zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 21-23 & 31-33 SW 52nd Court and 20-22 & 30-32 SW 52nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Rick D. Ruiz, on behalf of Francisco & Teresa Permuy and Guillermo Permuy, Owners FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Made a motion to recommend approval, which failed (due to the failure to obtain five affirmative votes), constituting a recommendation of denial to City Commission on October 16, 2006 by a vote of 2-4. See companion File ID 06-003971u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. CONTINUED Item PZ.26 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.27 06-00829Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 399 NORTHEAST 82ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM -DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-008291u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-008291u - Analysis.pdf 06-008291u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-008291u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-008291u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-008291u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-008291u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-008291u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-008291u PAB Reso.PDF 06-008291u CC School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 06-008291u CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-008291u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-008291u & 06-00829zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-008291u CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 399 NE 82nd Terrace [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Katia Traikos, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on June 21, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-00829zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Medium -Density Multifamily Residential. CONTINUED Item PZ.27 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.28 06-00829zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 9, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 399 NORTHEAST 82ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-00829zc Analysis.pdf 06-00829zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-00829zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-00829zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00829zc ZB 07-10-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00829zc ZB 09-11-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00829zc ZB 10-16-06 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00829zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-00829zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-008291u & 06-00829zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-00829zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 399 NE 82nd Terrace [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Katia Traikos, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 16, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 06-008291u. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-3 Multifamily Medium -Density Residential. CONTINUED Item PZ.28 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.29 06-01243mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE OMNI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1501-1701 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A SIX -BUILDING MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 584 FEET TO 644 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,208 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 350,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 6,154 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-01243mu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01243mu - PAB Analysis.pdf 06-01243mu - 3D Photo.pdf 06-01243mu - Zoning Map.pdf 06-01243mu - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-01243mu - Projects in the Vicinity.pdf 06-01243mu - Traffic Sufficiency Letter (6.29.06).pdf 06-01243mu - UDRB Resolution (6.21.06).pdf 06-01243mu - Large Scale Development Committee Sign -In Sheet (5.24.06).pdf 06-01243mu - Miami -Dade County Planning Comments (5.17.06).pdf 06-01243mu - School Board Comments (5.17.06).pdf 06-01243mu - Public Works Comments (5.4.06).pdf 06-01243mu - MDAD Planning Comments (5.3.06).pdf 06-01243mu - Solid Waste Comments (5.1.06).pdf 06-01243mu - Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet (4.4.06).pdf 06-01243mu - IDRC Comments (3.14.06).pdf 06-01243mu - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-01243mu - Exhibit A.pdf 06-01243mu - Exhibit B.pdf 06-01243mu PAB Reso.PDF 06-01243mu - Front Cover.PDF 06-01243mu - Inside Cover.PDF 06-01243mu - Table of Contents (1 to III).PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - A Letter of Intent.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - B Major Use Special Permit Application.pdf 06-01243mu - 1 - C Zoning Write Up.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - D Zoning Atlas.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - E Project Data Sheet.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - F Deed-Computer.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - G Ownership List.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 -1 Directory of Project Principals.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 - H State of Florida Documents.PDF 06-01243mu - 1 Project Information (A to 1).PDF 06-01243mu - 11 Project Description (A Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, 1 to 4).PDF 06-01243mu - III Supporting Documents (Tab 1 to Tab 6).PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 1 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Sufficiency Letter -Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix A to K).PD 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix A Methodology Correspondence.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix B Traffic Count Data.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix C Miami -Dade Transit Data.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix D Existing Conditions (2006).PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix E Growth Trend Analyses.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix F Cardinal Trip Distribution.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix G Volume Development Worksheets.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix H Future Conditions(2020 without Project).PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix J Driveway Queuing Analysis.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix K Future Project Information.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 3 Site Utility Study.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 4 Econimic Impact Study.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 5 Survey of Property.PDF 06-01243mu - III - Tab 6 Drawings Submitted.PDF 06-01243mu CC Analysis.pdf 06-01243mu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-01243mu CC Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf 06-01243mu CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1501-1701 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Downtown Miami Mall, LLC and Downtown Miami Hotel, LLC FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* (excluding conditions 11b and 11c) to City Commission on September 20, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Omni Development project. CONTINUED Item PZ.29 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.30 06-01640x RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES OF C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (15), TO ALLOW SALES OF USED AUTOMOBILES, SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2220 NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE AND 180 AND 186 NORTHEAST 23RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 06-01640x Analysis. pdf 06-01640x Zoning Map.pdf 06-01640xAerial Map.pdf 06-01640x Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01640x Plans.pdf 06-01640x ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01640x ZB Reso.PDF 06-01640x Appeal Letter.PDF 06-01640x CC Legislation (Verison 3).pdf 06-01640x Exhibit A.pdf 06-01640x CC Legislation (Verison 4).pdf 06-01640x Exhibit A.pdf 06-01640x CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2220 NE 2nd Avenue and 180 and 186 NE 23rd Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Mark A. LeVine, Esquire, on behalf of Liliana City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Murillo, on behalf of Chris Kwangwari, Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the appeal and approval with conditions* of the Special Exception. ZONING BOARD: Denied the Special Exception on October 30, 2006 by a vote of 4-2. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a used -car dealership. CONTINUED Item PZ.30 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.31 06-01847Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3209 SOUTHWEST 23RD TERRACE AND A PORTION OF 2340 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-008471u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-018471u - Analysis.pdf 06-018471u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-018471u - Comp Plan -revised.pdf 06-018471u - Zoning Map -revised (1).pdf 06-018471u - Aerial.pdf 06-018471u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-018471u - Application Documents.pdf 06-018471u- Exhibit A.pdf 06-018471u PAB Reso.PDF 06-018471u CC Application Supporting Docs.PDF 06-018471u CC School Impact Review Analysis.pdf 06-018471u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-018471u CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-018471u CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3209 SW 23rd Terrace and a Portion of 2340 SW 32nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire and Estrellita Sibila, Esquire, on behalf of Renaissance at the Gables, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 6, 2006 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 06-01847zc. City ofMiami Page 141 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for the proposed One Major Use Special Permit. CONTINUED Item PZ.31 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.32 06-01847zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" SPECIAL BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3209 SOUTHWEST 23RD TERRACE AND A PORTION OF 2340 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-01847zc Analysis.pdf 06-01847zc ZB Zoning Map.pdf 06-01847zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01847zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01847zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01847zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01847zc CC Zoning Map.pdf 06-01847zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-01847zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-01847zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3209 SW 23rd Terrace and a Portion of 2340 SW 32nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire and Estrellita Sibila, Esquire, on behalf of Renaissance at the Gables, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on November 13, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-018471u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial for the proposed One Major Use Special Permit. CONTINUED Item PZ.32 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.33 06-01056Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1292 SOUTHWEST 21ST TERRACE AND 2149 SOUTHWEST 13TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-010561u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010561u - Analysis.pdf 06-010561u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-010561u - Exhibit C.pdf 06-010561u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-010561u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-010561u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-010561u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-010561u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-010561u PAB Reso.pdf 06-010561u CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-010561u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010561u 06-01056zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-010561u CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1292 SW 21st Terrace and 2149 SW 13th Avenue [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Luis and Mercedes Palomo and Palomo Holdings, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on September 6, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 06-01056zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial. CONTINUED Item PZ.33 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.34 06-01056zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 38, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1292 SOUTHWEST 21ST TERRACE AND 2149 SOUTHWEST 13TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-01056zc Analysis.pdf 06-01056zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-01056zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01056zc Letter of Intent.pdf 06-01056zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01056zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01056zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01056zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010561u 06-01056zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-01056zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1292 SW 21st Terrace and 2149 SW 13th Avenue [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3] APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Luis and Mercedes Palomo and Palomo Holdings, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 30, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companiton File ID 06-010561u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted Commercial. CONTINUED Item PZ.34 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.35 05-00076x RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 9, SECTION 917.7.2, REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS, TO ALLOW A 28.29% PARKING REDUCTION AS FOLLOWS: TO WAIVE 71 OF THE REQUIRED 251 PARKING SPACES, PROPOSED 180 PARKING SPACES, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5600 NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE AND 368 NORTHEAST 57TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 05-00076x ZB Analysis.pdf 05-00076x Zoning Map.pdf 05-00076xAerial Map.pdf 05-00076x Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00076x ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00076x ZB Reso.PDF 05-00076x Appeal Letter.PDF 05-00076x CC Analysis.PDF 05-00076x ZB Zoning Write Up.pdf 05-00076x CC Zoning Write Up.pdf 05-00076x Plans.pdf 05-00076x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 05-00076x CC Exhibit A.pdf 05-00076x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 05-00076x CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 5600 NE 4th Avenue and 368 NE 57th Street [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Tony Recio, Esquire, on behalf of Pinnacle Place, Ltd., Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and denial of the Special Exception. ZONING BOARD: Denied the Special Exception on November 13, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a reduction in parking requirements for housing for low-income families and individuals. CONTINUED A motion was made by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, and was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Regalado absent, to continue item PZ.35 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to resume the meeting. We're going to be taking up the Planning and Zoning agenda. Are we ready? Vice Chairman Sanchez: We're ready. Chairman Gonzalez: Staff? We're ready, OK Gilberto Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: The -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- ifI could, I have a deferral. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza, 2660 -- 2525 Ponce de Leon, 7th Floor. I'm here on item number 35. City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: 35. Mr. Pastoriza: 35. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Pastoriza: And we wish to defer it to February. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Pastoriza: I think it's February 22. Chairman Gonzalez: We need to -- we need a motion to defer, right? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: It's a deferral of item -- of PZ.35 to February 22. Thank you. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Those are always in order, while we -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- get ready for the granddaddy of them all. PZ.36 06-01066x RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OF A DENSITY EQUAL TO R-3 OR HIGHER, IN THIS CASE, R-4 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5211 NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, 1629 NORTHWEST 52ND STREET AND 1630-1640 NORTHWEST 53RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 06-01066x Analysis.pdf 06-01066x Code Enforcement.pdf 06-01066x Zoning Map.pdf 06-01066xAerial Map.pdf 06-01066x Letter of Intent.pdf 06-01066x Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01066x Plans.pdf 06-01066x ZB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01066x ZB Reso.PDF 06-01066x Appeal Letter.PDF 06-01066x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 06-01066x CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-01066x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 06-01066x CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-01066x CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 5211 NW 17th Avenue, 1629 NW 52nd Street and 1630-1640 NW 53rd Street [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPELLANT(S): Herschel Haynes, Adjacent Property Owner, on behalf of Hadley Park/Model City Homeowners Association, as well as Lena Canty, Elmira Green, Bertha Thomas, Henry Goa, Bobby McGhee, Lillie Williams and Moselle Bell APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire, on behalf of Mayor Realty, Inc. and ALCO Group, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and approval with conditions* of the Special Exception. ZONING BOARD: Granted the Special Exception with conditions* on September 25, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow multifamily residential structures of a density of R-3 or higher in the C-2 district. CONTINUED Item PZ.21 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007. PZ.37 06-01060Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES" TO "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Votes: EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-010601u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010601u - Analysis.pdf 06-010601u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-010601u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-010601u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-010601u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-010601u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-010601u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-010601u PAB Reso.PDF 06-010601u CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-010601u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010601u & 06-01060zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-010601u CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter Lapin & Leichtling.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter Levine & Partners, P.A..pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter Luft Consulting, Inc..pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter Tucker Gibbs P.A..pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letters of Support.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Map.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Opposition Memo.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Petition.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Presentation.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Presentation Grove Bay.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Iris V. Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of TRG MH Venture, Ltd., Contract Purchaser, and Mercy Hospital, Inc., Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor to City Commission on September 20, 2006 by a vote of 3-3. See companion File ID 06-01060zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to High -Density Multifamily Residential for the proposed 300 Grove Bay Residences Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be DENIED FAILED by the following vote. Ayes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado Noes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Spence -Jones ***************************************************************************** ** Motion by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. I need your attention for a minute. We don't allow, because of the Fire Department regulation, people standing on the aisles. Those that cannot be sitting, they have to be waiting outside in the lobby, and they can look through the TV (Television) and listen from the lobby, but you cannot be standing up on the aisles or on the back of the chamber. Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Mr. Chairman, those -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Mr. Aguirre: -- of us who are in the lobby, would we be allowed to come in to present testimony or to speak? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, definitely. Mr. Aguirre: All right. Thank you, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Sure. Mr. Aguirre. Mr. Aguirre: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Those -- I'm trying to afford every group the opportunity to express himself in reference to this item, and I know there is a lot of people here today, and let me tell you. We're going to be working until 10 p.m. We're going to be here until 10 p.m. At 10 p.m. we're going to adjourn. In order to do that, what I suggest that you do is that you form groups, and you have a speaker representing different groups that can speak on the item because it will be impossible. Even though I'm going to allow equal amount of time to attorneys on both sides in favor and in opposition of the project, to the general public I'm going to be giving each person two minutes to speak on the item, but even at two minutes, we will be here until tomorrow, and time is limited to 10 p.m., so in the best effort to afford every group to express themselves in reference to the item, what I suggest that you do is that you form groups and select a speaker to speak, and you can say I'm representing 20 people, 25 people in opposition, because of whatever reasons you have to be in favor or in opposition, but what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to afford everyone to have an opinion, express their opinion in reference to the item. Patrick Goggins: Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. Mr. Goggins: Mr. Chairman, my name is Patrick Goggins, offices at 777 Brickell Avenue. I am here representing Constance Steen in this matter in the opposition. Just a point of order, the proceedings are going to start with presentations by the applicant, and then I would request that the presentation time, that the opposition gets an equal amount of time to make its opposition. There are currently two attorneys registered for the opposition. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Goggins: We also have presentations -- some of the homeowners have presentations that would take longer than two minutes, and if we could be given the flexibility to insert -- if we have extra time -- insert -- to have equal time, to insert those homeowners into the time allotted for the opposition, then the remaining homeowners, who have standard two -minute presentations, could make their presentation? I'd ask the Chair for that -- City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: And how many presentations are you planning on doing. Mr. Goggins: Well, we -- depending on how much time that the applicant is given, I would request equal time on behalf of the opposition in order to make these presentations, so if the applicant takes 20 minutes, we'll take 20 minutes, and we'll work around the two -minute limitation. If the applicant takes an hour, I'd request an hour to do that, and then -- beyond that, then the public comment portion of the hearing, everybody would get the two minutes, whatever the Chair thinks is appropriate. Chairman Gonzalez: Lucia, do you have -- you have -- how many presentations do you have, just yours or --? And how many attorneys do you have? Lucia Dougherty: We have one attorney and two expert witnesses and two people from the hospital. I don't anticipate, total, that we'll take more than a half an hour. Chairman Gonzalez: You won't take more than half an hour? Ms. Dougherty: No more, probably less in our initial presentation. Mr. Goggins: Whatever the app -- I just simply request that we get an equal amount of time, Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Very good. All right. When we start taking the public input, there -- I know there is some people here in wheelchairs. I will allow the persons in wheelchair to speak first so they can, you know, come in, express their opinion, and then they're free to go home and -- or be comfortable outside. All right, so let's begin. Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Director): For the record, Lourdes Slazyk. The -- PZ.37 and 38 before you this evening is a request for a change of land use and zoning for the portion of property located at 3663 South Miami Avenue. This is a 6.72-acre parcel. The recommendation from the Planning Department is for approval. The recommendation for the Planning Advisory Board on the requested land use change is a denial due to a tie vote of 3/3, and on the request of zoning change from G/I, Government and Institutional, to R-4 multifamily high -density residential, the recommendation from the Zoning Board is for denial. I did want to clarify also for the record, at the lower board, some questions came up regarding a recent amendment to the Zoning Code that was approved by this Commission for the G/I district, and the intent and effect of that ordinance on this application. The G/I ordinance amendment was -- what it basically required was that when a developer is going to develop a G/I property for something other than government or institutional uses, that the interpretation that was going to apply would be that the property could only be developed in accordance with the least restrictive zoning classification that it abutted. The intent of that ordinance was that when a property is zoned government and institutional, the moment it ceases to be used for government and institutional uses, it should be rezoned, and it should be rezoned into a classification for the uses for which the property is now going to be used if it's not government or institutional. The intent is not to keep G/I property and try to use it under G/I, using the less intense district. The intent is that it should be rezoned. In this particular case, the request before you is for an R-4 high -density multifamily residential designation. That designation is actually a downzoning of the property from its G/I classification. The G/I classification permits a whole list of uses that are not allowed in R-4, so the request is for a downzoning. The R-4 and G/I property classifications are also equal in density and intensity, so changing from G/I to R-4 is not increasing any -- the FAR (floor area ratio), not increasing the permitted units per acre. It's actually equal in that classification. What it is is eliminating a whole host of uses that are allowed in G/I that, again, if the property is no longer going to be used for a government or institutional purpose, it should be rezoned, and for that reason, the recommendation is for approval. City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Lucia. Mr. Goggins: IfI may, for just one moment, Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Goggins: I'd like to, before the applicant's presentation, make an objection to the extent that any of the presentation has to do with the Major Use Special Permit application. The public notice was simply for the change to the land map and for the change to the comp plan. There should be no discussion or consideration of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) or the project itself in this proceeding. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf ofMercy Hospital, and joining me this afternoon or this evening is Sister Elizabeth Worley, John Matuska, Jeffrey Horstmyer, who's a doctor at Mercy Hospital, as well as Dr. Pedro Greer, from Mercy Hospital. This also is -- I'm also representing a joint venture partnership consisting of Ocean Land and Related Companies of Florida. Jean Francois Roy and Mark Esserman are here on behalf of Ocean Land, and Jorge Perez is here on behalf of The Related Companies. This is a request -- this rezoning and comp plan amendment is a request to allow a three -building, 300-unit residential project at the eastern tip ofMercy campus, which is currently a parking lot. Two years ago this project would have been an as -of -right project without any rezoning or comp plan amendment, just like the Grovenor, which is directly across the street. After the Grovenor was approved, the developers of the Grovenor sponsored legislation that provided that if you wanted to develop outside of the G/I, you had to do so on the least intensive zoning classification, or -- butwhat l want you to know, and what Lourdes just reiterated, nothing did or would or could preclude the rezoning of the property to the most appropriate zoning classification, and in fact, she just testified that the most impor -- most appropriate zoning classification is the R-4. We believe it's also appropriate because it is the same FAR as the current zoning classification. It is the same height as the current zoning classification. The density that is proposed is actually less than the R-3 zoning classification, which is the most immediate abutting zoning classification. Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me a second. Madam City -- Ms. Dougherty: Certainly. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Clerk, did you set the clock? Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Yes, we did. Chairman Gonzalez: You did? OK. Ms. Burns: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Ms. Burns: (INAUDIBLE) have the time. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Ms. Dougherty: So as of right, under your -- even your new ordinance, we could develop 408 units on this property. We're, in fact, developing 300 units. If we were developing in accordance with the R-4, 1,008 units would be permitted,; again, we're only requesting 300. All of the objections we have heard have to do with two things: height and precedent. We haven't heard any objections to traffic because traffic for this residential project would allow -- provide City ofMiami Page 151 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 for 110 trips per peak hour, whereas a medical office building of the same size would provide for -- or would actually have 2,750 trips in the same peak hour, so regarding the precedent -- and this is important to recognize -- we have agreed, and we have agreed by a covenant, to request a zone -- a downzoning or an upzoning, in this case, to G/I after the CO (Certificate of Occupancy) has been granted for each building. In other words, if the precedent is something that anyone is concerned about, we'll agree to rezone the property back to a G/I classification, and we have offered that as a covenant. In terms of height, this cannot be an issue since the height is allowed today. In other words, compatibility is height; height is allowed today under the current zoning classification. Medical office building of exactly the same height and the same size is permitted today. A nursing home of exactly the same height and the same size is permitted today; only you could have 108 units of nursing home units. Again, I wanted to read to you from our comp plan -- your comp plan, and it says here under Government and Institution, it says, "Residential facilities ancillary to government and institution are allowed to a maximum density equal to high -density multifamily residential subject to the limiting conditions." That's 150 units per acre. Again, we are not requesting that. We are requesting something much less, less than an R-3, which is 65 units per acre. Before I conclude, and I just wanted to also indicate that this use also allows or requires us to put $1.6 million into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Before I conclude, I'd like to ask Bernardo Fort -Brescia to make a very brief presentation of the plan as provided, or as we envisioned, and then Jack Luft to talk about the planning principles and whether this use and this zoning classification is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Bernardo Fort -Brescia: Good afternoon. My name is Bernardo Fort -Brescia. I'm a principal ofArquitectonica, the architects for this project, and I'd like to be as concise as possible within the complexity of a project like this, and take you through what is being proposed on the site and make some comparisons as well. For those of you who have been to Mercy but may have not seen it from the air, this shows you the location of the site, and I'd like to point at it here, where you see a red mark, because it shows accurately, from a true photograph, the position of the site with respect to the surrounding neighborhoods, and the distance between the site and South Bayshore Drive and other developed areas of the City, because you can see its position where it is currently a waterfront parking lot, essentially, that is currently occupied largely by cement and automobiles; adjacent to the loading area, which is what you see from the waterfront of a major hospital, and in the proposed development that Lucia has mentioned -- and I will not run through the zoning aspects that she has mentioned -- is this -- precisely this site, a very large site, which allows certain advantages for creating a better environment for living and for the neighborhood, and I'd like to take you through this second board to give you a sense of what the site boundaries are, because as you can see, the site is comprised of this parcel that wraps from the east and diagonally to the southeast and to the south on Biscayne Bay, and then it actually has just a tangency point of connection with other neighborhoods to the south and has a very long drive, over a thousand feet, all the way to South Bayshore Drive, as you see it here, so what is it that we are proposing first from the public purpose point of view and then through the living point of view? Well, in fact, currently this whole waterfront is not very well developed, is not very user-friendly. In fact, if you want to reach it fi^om South Bayshore Drive, you have to walk on the street. There is no sidewalks, and it is not properly conditioned for bicycles or pedestrians to reach that waterfront. This is in fact a private waterfront that happens to be that people are allowed to walk into it and walk around it, but in fact, there is no official public access to it, and what we are proposing is precisely to redevelop this avenue with a proper landscaping, provide a pathway for bicycles and pedestrians to reach the waterfront, and then develop along this waterfront a waterfront walk, a promenade that will wrap around this corner and connect north. This is a huge improvement in -- for that adjacent neighborhoods, and finally, they will have access to the waterfront into a very pedestrian friendly environment, away from a parking lots and cars and connected with the environment of Biscayne Bay. It is -- I'd like to take you into further detail of -- if you look at this larger image that I'm going to show you here -- excuse me -- over here to tell you a little bit about what happens here because -- in fact, we all know what happens, and our City garages are a very dominant part of development, and City ofMiami Page 152 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 they are vertical, and they become very much part of the facade of buildings. Not in this case. As you can see, everything that you see here along the waterfront is that promenade, and that promenade varies in width. In fact, this is probably one of the widest promenades that are being provided in the City. It ranges from 19 to 40 feet in depth, with a series of pocket parks and experiences along the waterfront with water areas, seating areas, and landscaping that is very generous. In fact, the buildings are set back in -- to a variety from 50 to 74 feet from the waterfront, and the entire garage, which is only two stories, is very horizontal, is a green garage. It's a -- as you can see from the previous image, it is a park on the roof with tennis courts and a children's playground and green areas, and the roadway rises to it, and therefore, from the waterfront, you really can't see the garage. This is a series of terraces with a sand terrace, like a beach, and swimming pools and cabanas that rise up to the level of the arrival of the buildings to the flood level; in fact, where we have to build, so from the waterfront you will not see any garage. In fact, you don't see the garage from anywhere. It's really a very horizontal garage. It's a green roof. It is a park. It is a -- the towers rising from them are actually quite nautical and soft; they're not hard, boxy buildings. They're three elliptical towers that follow the curvature of the building, so I'd like to tell you how we architects look at buildings and how we analyze them, how we analyze sites with clients, and we looked at all the possibilities of one can do -- what one can do on this site. In fact, there are certain things that we can do here as of right, and I'll give you an example, and we actually did an overlay. People often don't understand what you can do with a million square feet. In fact, let me begin with the initial possibility, which is an office building, say a medical office building, and we did an overlay, and what is -- what people don't realize is a medical office building, or any office building, the floor -to -floor height is one and a half times that of residential, so within the same FAR the building would be about one-third to one-half larger in bulk than a residential building. Now let's look at what a medical building requires. This is not in a mass transit neighborhood, so you've got to drive to that office building, and if you did an office building, you would require -- let's say for a thousand square feet of office, you would require probably between three and four cars per thousand square feet in a medical building; generally much higher than in a regular office building. Let's take an average of three and a half cars per thousand. That means for every 1,000 square feet, you have three and a half cars. Now if you do a regular residential building, which -- with apartments that range between, let say, a thousand square feet in average, you would have maybe one to one and a half cars per unit. That's already about less than half -- excuse me, about a third of the number of cars that it would require for an office building. Now what we're doing in this million square feet is not a thousand units. We're only doing in this residential building 300 units, so you can see that the amount of parking is greatly reduced. Right now in the proposed building, the parking is way down here; it's two stories. It wouldn't be this monumental garage that you would be needing for either a regular office building or even for a residential building of the kind that we see developed around our City, so the decision -- when the developer told me among the options that we had, that we would be going residential, I knew automatically that I didn't have a parking garage image problem; that I didn't have a parking garage bulk problem, and that the bulk of the residential buildings would be greatly diminished compared to an office building. Furthermore, in an office building, because of the size of the floor plate, I would have had to put two massive buildings, not three smaller footprint buildings because, logically, you can have -- you have to have an efficient office building with a minimum floor plate. We also discussed a couple other options, and one of them was to do an ALF, an Assisted Living Facility. Assisted living facilities, which are permitted here, and we discussed them with Hyatt, as one of the operators of luxury ALFs. Well, luxuryALFs can range from efficiencies that are about 600 square feet to larger units that are 1,500 square feet. Let's say, an average about 800 square feet. It would have the similar impact of traffic and parking bulk -- forget about traffic -- the parking bulk, the services that come with it that are similar to a hospital, loading areas and so forth, that are required for that kind of facility, and we clearly felt that, really from the urban design point of view, there would be no better proposal than doing larger apartments like these. They range from 3,000 to 4,000 square feet, which have a diminished traffic count that is significant -- lesser traffic count, significant less parking; no peak hours that you would have in an office building because peak hours -- and City ofMiami Page 153 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 our traffic consultant will tell you about peak hours in office buildings compared to residential buildings, particularly luxury residential buildings of this kind, so I thought this perspective was an important way of showing you, in an overlay, what would be the impact of some of these other uses as they would apply to this property. I think, however, in the end, what really feel strongly about here is that we are improving the sense of the public reaching the waterfront; that this whole zone in front of these towers is such a huge improvement, and it creates an amazing amenity for the neighborhood, a place where -- to go out to the waterfront and experience what we've been frying to do throughout the City as part of the master plan, frying to create access for the public to the waterfront, and creating pleasant environments along the waterfront that are residential, that are quiet, where people can go spend time next to the most valuable asset that we have in our community. The ability to have access through the proper way, through a sidewalk, through a bicycle path, and out to the waterfront here, I think it's invaluable for the surrounding neighborhoods in this City, and I think that tells you, in a nutshell, whatl think are the great advantages of a development like this over what is really entitled within this property. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: And I think one of the important things is that this would be always open to the public, whereas, right now you can go down there, but it is private property. I mean, at any time the Archdiocese could close it off if they wanted to, but this way this would be guaranteed public access for the future. I'd like Jack Luft to come forward, and he's our urban planner to testify -- John Lukacs: Mr. Chairman -- Ms. Dougherty: -- about the -- Mr. Lukacs: -- point of order. Forgive me, Ms. Dougherty. May I have an opportunity to ask Mr. Fort -Brescia a couple of questions? Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He will. Ms. Burns: Excuse me. I need your name again for the record, please. Mr. Lukacs: My name is John Lucas. I represent Grove Isle. My offices are located 201 Sevilla Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. Mr. Fort -Brescia, how long has your firm been involved in the design of this project. Mr. Fort -Brescia: It's been over a year. Mr. Lukacs: OK, and have you met with members of the Planning Department, the Urban Design Division, or the Land Development Division of the Planning Department. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: You have. OK. Would you agree, sir, that the change of zoning of this property from G/I to R-4 will result in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions of this area? Mr. Fort -Brescia: No. Mr. Lukacs: Would you agree, sir, that the project is out of scale for this area? Mr. Fort -Brescia: No. City ofMiami Page 154 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Lukacs: Would you agree that the land use should be consistent with the adjoining neighborhood, and if a change of zoning were to occur, that that change of zoning should be to R-1 ? Mr. Fort -Brescia: I think it is consistent. I don't know the technicalities or the legal aspects that you're asking me, but I think it's a residential use, and I think it's consistent with the residential uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Lukacs: Did you undertake any independent studies to ascertain whether or not this project was in scale with the surrounding area? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, I'd like to -- I think that your question depends on how you look at it, because this is adjacent to a hospital that is a fairly massive building, and I think this is very much in scale with the hospital, Grove Isle, and there is a row of residential buildings in the neighborhood that very much are compatible in terms of their use. Mr. Lukacs: OK. The question was whether or not you undertook an independent study to ascertain whether or not this project was in scale with the surrounding area. You responded with respect to Mercy Hospital. How about with respect to the other homeowners that live within a 500-foot radius of the subject property? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Maybe you can define for me what you call an independent study. Mr. Lukacs: Well, tell me what studies, if any, you understood took to determine -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, I'd -- Mr. Lukacs: -- that the scale -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- like to understand the question -- Mr. Lukacs: Let me finish my question. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- if it was an independent study. Mr. Lukacs: An independent study would be a study by either yourself or members of your staff wherein you determined, and can express an opinion today on the basis of that study, that in fact this project is in scale with the surrounding area. Mr. Fort -Brescia: I think every architect, when he undertakes a project, looks at what one thinks is most appropriate development on that site in terms of scale, appearance, proportion, and I think we do that, as a matter of fact, in all our projects, and I think that being this a G -- zoning -- G/1 [sic] zoning, it is -- I think this is very much a project that if anything, as proposed, improves what would have otherwise been permitted on that site -- Lukacs: Was that study -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- and it creates a better environment. Mr. Lukacs: Great. Was that study or undertaking on your behalf communicated to the Planning Department staff? Mr. Fort -Brescia: I think we have a series of hearings and internal review hearings, and we exchange our philosophies and our ideas, and we do extensive presentations to the Planning Department. City ofMiami Page 155 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Lukacs: OK. Did you submit any written documentation that would embrace whatever study was undertaken to determine -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, when we submit -- Mr. Lukacs: -- the scale of this project? Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- to the Planning Department, we submit full sets of drawings and images and diagrams and so forth that are very -- are a part of the file, and you probably can look at them. They're a part of the official record. Mr. Lukacs: Very good. Thank you, sir. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Jack Luft: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Luft: -- members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jack Luft. My address is 1 71 7 Windward Way, Sanibel Island, Florida. I have presented to the City Clerk a copy of my resume and my biography as a planning professional to establish my credentials as an expert witness for planning purposes. I have reviewed the request and change for a comprehensive plan land use amendment and for the companion zoning change, which, according to Chapter 163, would be required along with that, any approval of that comp plan change. I am of the conclusion that both the change and the R-4 designation are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the standards of your land development regulations for a project at this location. I'll explain to you how I've come to that conclusion. Your Comprehensive Plan -- Lourdes spoke of the amendment or, excuse me, Ms. Slazyk spoke of the amendment to the G/I district in your land development regulations. That did not change your Comprehensive Plan future land use element description of the major institutional use, and this is from your June 2006 adopted plan. Residential facilities in your major institutional area consisting of public and private medical health facilities inclusive of that, that residential facilities are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to high -density residential, multifamily residential, and in the land use category high -density, that describes a density of a 150 dwelling units, so the question becomes how is this compatible? It is consistent with your future land use element and the uses that are permitted. Compatibility is determined basically in two or -- the consistencies are determined in two measures; compatibility with the surrounding area and synergy, that is, the fit with the adjacent uses that creates a positive impact on those uses. Interestingly enough -- and I know this is -- I want to draw your attention to this graphic. The project site or for those -- land use change is outlined here. I would correct Hr. Fort -Brescia in just one small respect. Even though the access road is contiguous to the R-3, no part of this particular zoning change is contiguous to any other land use district, except G/I; G/I on the south, G/I on the west, and Biscayne Bay on the east and south. The site is bordered by R-3 zoning that's existing along the bayfront, which, as I've outlined in these buildings so that you can see them more clearly, is almost completely developed, with structure is ranging from 50 feet high some as high as 15 stories, notwithstanding the limitation ofR-3 to 50 feet. In addition, to the immediate south of the site -- to the immediate west of the site is a five -story Carroll Manor property which is built to the limits ofR-3. It is, in effect, an R-3 development that actually serves the same physical purpose of the transition zone as does the R-3. Further to the west is the environmental zoning along Bayshore Drive that acts as a 75-foot buffer zone from all of these uses to the adjacent residential area of Bay Heights. This is important because R-3 is, in City ofMiami Page 156 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 fact, a transitional use zone in your Zoning Code; you use it throughout the City to put between high -density residential and low -density neighborhoods. That's why you have an R-3 district, to create that fransition. That fransition is already in place. Therefore, if this wasn't here, this is what you would want to do to be able to say that the R-4 was compatible. The second dimension to this is a question of scale relationships. It's been discussed extensively and debated in the community what is high, how high is how, how high is too high; big, too big. I will have to tell you that, as a planner, scale and compatibility is not subject to a plebiscite. This is not something you vote on. We don't take a show of hands to determine what it is. You utilize the standards that are in your Code. All communities, in order to establish what constitutes the legal satisfaction of the term compatibility and scale relationships, have to set standards. You have a standard. Your standard is Section 907.3.2 of the Code. It says -- and this is the rule concerning heights of building abutting all residential districts. I've put it on another graphic; I can show it to you if you'd like, but what it says is that for any building in the city, anywhere in the city, that is over 40 feet high, in addition to the base yard setbacks, all yards, you must provide, in addition, abutting a single-family or duplex neighborhood, you must provide an additional one foot of setback for every two feet of height over 40 feet. That is what we call a building separation formula. It creates greater distance the higher you go. It -- you can see it as a light plane that leaves in from that beginning point of the yard area at 40 feet. By definition, any building in your community that falls below that light plane and absorbs those setbacks is construed as compatible. In legal terms, it is presumptively compatible in scale. Let's look at the exact situation that we have here. It so happens that from the first available footprint -- and I'm not talking about the development thatHr. Fort -Brescia presented; I'm talking about generically any development in the R-4 zone. The first available footprint observing in place setbacks for the R-4 would place a building, at its closest point, 600 feet from the nearest single-family residence in an R-1 zone anywhere in this area, and that residence happens to be here on the corner of Glencoe, 600 feet. Ifyou were to apply that one to two setback over 40 feet at the point of this property, this single-family residence, it would mean -- to be compatible in scale, you would have to set back 125 feet for a 300-foot building and 195 feet for a 400-foot building. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How far from the R-3? Mr. Luft: Six hundred. Oh, from the R-3? Vice Chairman Sanchez: 3. Mr. Luft: R-3 is a buffer zone. It is meant to abut R-4. Is it actually the width of the roadway, about 50 feet, but R-3 exists along Miami Avenue; between R-4 and R-1, along 17th Avenue, along 27th Avenue, in the river, along Biscayne Boulevard. Throughout the City it is an abutting district between R-4 and R-1, so it is not a question of compatibility with the R-3, and your Code, 907.3.2, specifically addresses single-family. That 600-foot distance, as I said, would yield a building that would have to be at least 125 feet for 30 stories and 195 feet for 400 feet. As you can see, with a 600 foot separation we're well beyond any kind of scale relationship that your Code says is compatible. On this property, it amounts to two to three times greater setback that your Code would require to be construed as compatible. The only way you can measure that is in terms of your own Code standards. It is compatible with your shoreline ordinance that requires public access. It's compatible with your urban infill policy plan that encourages redevelopment of underdeveloped and vacant sites within your urban center that are close to major concentrations of facilities and services. That's precisely the situation on this site. In conclusion, I have considered all of these factors: computability, setbacks, buffers, distances, and concluded that you meet the compatibility requirements that your Code establishes; it is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan; it comports with your G/I district, and as such, in my opinion it is suitable for your consideration for approval. Thank you very much. Mr. Goggins: Wonder ifI might have a few questions for the witness. City ofMiami Page 157 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Luft: Surely, sir. Mr. Goggins: -- please? Thank you. My name is Patrick Goggins, and you mentioned -- it was your testimony that under the Code, this proposed project is presumptively compatible, correct? Mr. Luft: Compared with the standards in the Code for setbacks and scale relationships between abutting districts. Mr. Goggins: And that is based on the setback. Now have you done a study of the --? Mr. Luft: Yes, I have. Mr. Goggins: And have you published a report on this? Mr. Luft: No, sir, I have not. Mr. Goggins: OK Now, in the study, did you take into account the height of the buildings in the neighborhood? Mr. Luft: Yes, I did. Mr. Goggins: What is the highest building in the neighborhood? Mr. Luft: The 15-story structure in the R-3 zone by Hiawatha. They range from 15 to 8 to 6 to 5 in the R-3 zone. Mr. Goggins: So 15 stories? Mr. Luft: Um -hum. Mr. Goggins: And, again, how many stories is the proposed projects to be? Mr. Luft: I'm not here to discuss that project. Within the R-4 zone, as with the G/I zone, there is no height limit. Mr. Goggins: OK, so if there -- ifI was to tell you that the proposed project is 410 feet high, would you disagree? Mr. Luft: No, sir. Mr. Goggins: How -- and -- so that would roughly be twice the size or more than twice the size of the 15-story building you've talked about; is that correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Goggins: Now that is your -- it's your testimony that a building that's twice the size of the building -- the closest building in the neighborhood is compatible? Mr. Luft: I'm -- my testimony is that your standards -- the City standards specifically lay out a formula that provides an objective basis, not an opinion, an objective basis for establishing what scale relationships are acceptable and therefore compatible. That scale relationship analysis says if you're with -- if you're a -- to use your example, a 40-story building, if you're within 195 feet of a single-family district, you're compatible. In the case of this site, the building that you're referring to is closer to a thousand feet. The closest structure that you could build on a footprint City ofMiami Page 158 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 in the R-4 is 600 feet;; 1,300 feet from Bay Heights; 1, 600 feet from Vizcaya, and 3, 000 feet from the Vizcaya mansion. Mr. Goggins: Thank you. The -- now the notion though that the standard is an objective one, does that mean that this Commission has no discretion or ability to determine which -- what is -- what kind of project is too high or too out -of -scale? Mr. Luft: The Commission -- this Commission, any Commission, does not have the unfettered ability to establish, in their own judgment, what compatibility is. They may adjust the footprint of the building on the site. They may require buffering. They may look for setbacks. Most normally what they do is they go through the architectural review committee and look at the scale of the facade, the fenestration, the detailing to try to bring the scale of the building down. That's how you address scale relationship. There's many ways to deal with it, but you cannot arbitrarily pick a number out of the air and say, well, it's double, and it's too high. It doesn't work like that. That's simply an arbitrary process. Mr. Goggins: Thank you. One last question. In your testimony you mentioned that the subject property that is part of this application does not abut the R-3 parcel, is that correct? Mr. Luft: The -- on the site plan that you see here, just for the purposes of comparing the road, the shared road access, which comes in off of Bayshore and then moves around the site to provide emergency room access, it establishes a tangent point at the corner of the bay here. This is the line of the shoreline where the R-3 sets. It is approximately a hundred feet away. There is no direct point of tangency on this site here, which is the subject development site of the R-4 with the R-3. Mr. Goggins: Thank you, and is it within the scope of your expertise, within the scope of your duties on this particular matter to make interpretations under the other Codes, like this R-4 Code that -- including the so-called Grovenor ordinance? Could you speak to that? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Goggins: The Grovenor ordinance says that the property has to -- if you go to an ancillary use like this, in -- a residential use, from a governmental use, it -- the Zoning class -- it reverts to the Zoning classification of the least intensive abutting residential use. Now, if this property does not abut an R-3 use, wouldn't you agree that it is surrounded completely by a government and institutional parcel? Mr. Luft: What the ordinance said, in my opinion, and I concur with Ms. Slazyk's description, if you're changing the use and the ownership and the development of the site and eliminating the G/I use entirely, then that change must go, if it's not going to be G/I, to the lowest district. That's Mr. Goggins: The lowest what district? Mr. Luft: The lowest abutting district. Mr. Goggins: Abutting, correct. Mr. Luft: For instance, if you were to change the G/I on the Coconut Grove Playhouse, you would literally have to change the use, so it's a -- less than a two -acre site, so by changing the entire use, you are now thrown into the situation, as Ms. Slazyk described, where you would then eliminate G/I entirely and start over and look at the abutting districts. In this case, it would either be the R-1 on the one back edge or the C-1 -- C-2 -- SD-2, excuse me. The fact is, on this site, the Mercy Hospital occupies approximately 58 acres. If you combine that with LaSalle as City ofMiami Page 159 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 part of the larger campus of the Archdiocese, it's over 80 acres. We're looking at a change here of about six, so clearly, the predominant use, the G/I, remains; it is not being displaced, and as such, the rule or the trigger that Hs. Slazyk described that then calls into how you change the zoning when the G/I goes away is not in place. The intent was to have a safeguard so that a G/I left, there was no more G/I left in the vicinity, then you would look to abutting relationships. That's clearly not the case because, in fact, the G/I remains abutting the R-1 district. Mr. Goggins: And just to take that one further, the -- you would agree, then, that if you looked at the entire Mercy parcel, including Halissee Street, the Mercy parcel, the entire parcel that's zoned G/I, including LaSalle and the Science Museum, would you agree that the least intensive abutting residential use in that district is R-1? Mr. Luft: For the entire tract? Mr. Goggins: Yes, sir. Mr. Luft: The least intensive abutting district is R-1 for the entire tract. There's no abutting R-1 district on this particular tract in question today. Mr. Goggins: In fact, there's no abutting district other than G/I? Mr. Luft: That's right, so that's why it's -- what? Mr. Goggins: And so would you look to the entire G/I parcel to determine what's the least intensive abutting use? Mr. Luft: No, because the G/I is not going away. As Ms. Slazyk clearly described, when you replace the G/I, ifyou were to take, for instance, Ransom School and try to build a high -density development, that's less than an eight -acre site. You would, effectively, take out critical facilities that would be required for the continuation of that use that would obviate the need to remove it. Once the G/I, in its entirety, goes away, then you trigger and you look at abutting relationships. That's not the case here; the G/I remains, so in this case we look to the Comprehensive Plan, which, in any case, sir, I'll remind you, the Comprehensive Plan is the governing document here. All land development regulations have to be consistent with it by state law Chapter 163, and it says that appropriate within, or adjacent to, or as a part of the complex of G/I in that family of uses, residential high -density is appropriate. That's why we're saying it is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Goggins: Does the Grovenor ordinance and/or the -- or the Zoning Code, in this instance, refer to the Comprehensive Plan as the standard that they use, or does the ordinance say the least intensive abutting use? Mr. Luft: The ordinance says least intensive abutted use if you're replacing, as Ms. Slazyk explained the intent, the G/I in its entirety. Mr. Goggins: And ifI could just ask you one last question. Mr. Luft: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Goggins: What is the least intensive abutting use, and tell me again. I'm -- apologize. Mr. Luft: The least intensive abutting use to this site the G/I, which is the same intensity. Mr. Goggins: So, then, this property could only revert to G/I. Mr. Lukacs: Excuse me. The witness is being -- City ofMiami Page 160 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Luft: Well -- Mr. Lucas: -- Mr. Chairman, when a witness is cross-examined, he is not at liberty to discuss his testimony with counsel. Objection. Mr. Luft: I was just provided a letter of interpretation that states that the G/I or the subject site has a contiguous spot next to the R-3. It's not -- it doesn't show on this drawing, but that's what - - she was just showing me the document. Mr. Goggins: So, I guess, one last time, what is the least intensive abutting use that is not G/I, and how do you make that determination? Mr. Luft: For this site, if it's correct, which is not what's shown on that drawing, if it's R-3, then it would be R-3. Mr. Goggins: But you don't have a drawing that demonstrates that it's R-3, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Can I ask a question while he's looking? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, could you go back to your other diagram, where you had a "G" on there, and I want to visit your testimony where you said that if you're not taking away the entirety of the G/I use, then you necessarily would not look to the abutting property, correct? Mr. Luft: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff So ifI were to -- Mr. Luft: That's what your staff said. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, I thought that was your testimony. Mr. Luft: Well, I was concurring with staff. Commissioner Sarnoff I want to make sure that you concur -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff -- so ifI were -- I'm a simple guy -- to take a pizza and just start cutting a bunch of pizza slices at that G [sic], each time I cut a pizza slice, I would have remaining other G/I, and your way -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff -- of looking at it, each pizza that I would take off the pizza pie, so to speak, would remain G/I, subject to a zoning change, correct? Mr. Luft: The piece or the remaining pieces? Commissioner Sarnoff Well, you're telling me that in order for it to revert back to the lowest abutting unit, that you would have to do away with the G/I, so by my concept, I see a pizza, and City ofMiami Page 161 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 as I take away a slice of pizza, what you're telling me is that slice can revert back to whatever you choose because you're not taking the entire G/I away; is that correct? Mr. Luft: As long as it's consistent with your comprehensive institutional use -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right -- Mr. Luft: -- which is R-4. Commissioner Sarnoff -- so your interpretation is you'd have to eat the whole -- Mr. Luft: No. Commissioner Sarnoff -- pizza before it would revert back to the lowest abutting use? Mr. Luft: You would have to eliminate the G/I use. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, so as you -- you could then go back a number of times after this with other land use attorneys and make the same argument on the west side of the property, on the east side of the property, on the north side of the property, and on the south side of the property -- Applause. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and argue you're only taking away a portion; thus, it does not revert back to the lowest abutting use, correct? Mr. Luft: Correct -- Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Luft: -- but I'll remind you, what I said is that, from the Comprehensive Plan standpoint and from the point of view of putting the category on here, you then go to the next level of analysis, which I provided you, which is to say, given this specific site, what are the contextual relationships? Commissioner Sarnoff I understand. Mr. Luft: Are the buffers in place? Commissioner Sarnoff What you don't want to do -- Mr. Luft: And the one place on this site where an R-3 buffer is in place is this corner -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'm not arguing at all -- Mr. Luft: -- so -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- I'm not arguing with all -- Mr. Luft: -- you can't go from anywhere at any time automatic. You and the staff would have to review this and consider the second level of transitional -- Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft. City ofMiami Page 162 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Luft: -- and buffering zoning before -- Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft -- Mr. Luft: -- you could get there. Commissioner Sarnoff -- I'm only frying to establish -- Mr. Luft: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff -- that, under your interpretation, should we see you here in a year, two years, five years, or seven years, should you be good enough to be here, that you could come in here and make the very same argument with the north side of the property, the south side, the east side, the west side; once again, would only be subject to a zoning change because the entirety of it would not be taken out. Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Correct, sir? Mr. Luft: Yes -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: -- and let me put it another way. If you're frying to argue that you can't change any of it under the way they're reading the Code, then no G/I district in the city, including Jackson Memorial, could have any zoning change anywhere within the geographic layout of G/I without eliminating the entire G/I. Commissioner Sarnoff That's because you're only choosing to -- you're not reading the GI ordinance, correct, sir? Mr. Luft: I'm reading the G/I language here, which clearly says that R-4 is a compatible use. Commissioner Sarnoff You're not read -- Mr. Luft: What you're reading in the Code is the G/I ordinance for the City in its entirety, all G/I districts -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: -- and that's what Ms. Slazyk is saying. If you read it that way, you couldn't construe it as meaning you can't change any part of it without changing the whole thing because that would mean that all these other G/I districts are locked into, basically, single-family development, everywhere in the city, because that's usually the context that most G/I is found -- Commissioner Sarnoff That -- Mr. Luft: -- schools, cultural facilities -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. That was the intent of the -- Mr. Luft: -- hospitals. Commissioner Sarnoff -- statute, though, right? City ofMiami Page 163 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Luft: No, it wasn't. Commissioner Sarnoff You don't think that was the intent? Mr. Luft: No, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: Not at all. Mr. Goggins: Well -- so it would be a bad thing to have G/I properties that are abutting res -- R-1 uses revert to R-1, if going to residential? Mr. Luft: It would be inappropriate and unsound planning to tell every G/I property in the City that if any portion of your G/I district, regardless of how large, touches a single-family zone, then no zoning can occur anywhere in the district for any reason except single family. That makes no sense. It is not the intent of the ordinance, and it would be a tremendous hardship and a limitation on all the G/I districts throughout the City. You have to look to the specific site, the specific site relationships that exist, the contextual relationships, the buffer zones, to make the determination whether another district is appropriate. In this specific case, my conclusion is it is. It fits the Comprehensive Plan, and it fits all of your standard planning practice for land use. Mr. Goggins: Thank you, sir. Applause. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, there -- before we go further, Mr. Chairman, there are several people here from Carroll Manor who would like to leave. It's getting a little hot in here, and they -- they're elderly and they'd like to leave, so I'd like to acknowledge that there's probably about 50 people here from Carroll Manor who are probably going to be leaving. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: OK. The City Commission -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But let's -- why don't we allow the disabled to come first, and that way they could -- Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why don't we let the disabled -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Ms. Dougherty: We're going to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- people that are wheelchair -- and that way they -- Mr. Goggins: I would agree to pause the presentation time clock if the disabled wanted to come up and -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Mr. Goggins: -- speak. City ofMiami Page 164 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. I think that's a -- Mr. Goggins: I -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- great idea. Mr. Goggins: -- agree. I concur. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Burns: Mr. Chair, would you like me to swear everyone in again -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, please. Ms. Burns: -- if they weren't -- Chairman Gonzalez: We need to do that. Ms. Burns: -- here in the morning? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Burns: OK. Would each of you who plan to provide testimony this evening please stand up and raise your right hand. The Assistant City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Burns: Thank you. Please be seated. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Can we get those that'll be testifying that are disabled or in wheelchairs to come up, and two minutes will be awarded to each. Two minutes -- is two minutes OK on both sides? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Because there are a lot of speakers that want to speak on this item today, and we want to make sure we afford everyone that opportunity. Well, we realize there are people outside that could not make it in. If they want to speak on the item, we certainly don't want to deny anybody the right nor the due process, so listen, two minutes. All those who want to speak have the right to speak to this legislative body. Alvah Chapman: My name is Alvah Chapman. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right, folks. Bear with us, make it as less painful as possible. Mr. Chapman: My name is Alvah Chapman. I'm a 46-year resident of the City ofMiami. I live at 1690 South Bayshore Lane, Apartment 10AB, Miami, 33133. As I said, I've been a resident of Miami for 46 years. Since 1991 I've been a resident of Coconut Grove. I pay taxes to the City of Miami, about $30, 000. I think I'm getting a bargain. Before I retired I was chairman and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of KnightRidder, and since 1993I've been founding chairman of the Community Partnership for Homeless. It's a nationally recognized homeless organization that has helped 30, 000 people leave the streets of the City ofMiami for a better life. Most of my City ofMiami Page 165 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 career, I've been pro -development. I was chairman of the New World Center Action Committee of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce for five years in the middle '70s and '80s, and we were interested in making developments in downtown Miami. I proposed, aided, and assisted in getting over a billion dollars worth of development of downtown Miami, so I've been very much pro -development, but I'm opposed to this project because I think it's bad for the residents of the neighborhood, very bad. I would not be opposed to Mercy Hospital expanding its project -- its facilities for medical reasons. I've been a patient ofMercy Hospital twice in the last year. It's a good hospital and they deserve an opportunity to expand for medical reasons, but I'm opposed to this for fraffic, being my main concern. The Bayshore Drive is bad fraffic now; it'll be horrible with a new project. I'm opposed to it because of the emergency vehicles I see pass by my home everyday. They get bogged down on Bayshore Drive against present fraffic, and if it gets to be more traffic, it'll be more bogged down. I'm opposed to it from the emergency vehicle standpoint. I oppose the project because of the quality of life -- that it would interfere with my quality of life, my neighbors'. I've been living in a condo with 14 other residents, and each one of us is opposed to this project very strongly. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chapman. Thank you. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right, listen. We're going to be asking you very kindly to try to hold back on the applause, or else both sides are going to be applauding all night, and really, you know, we don't allow it. It's -- it was read before the PZ items that we don't allow people to clap, so please, bear with us on this. All right. Next speaker. I believe they're getting some of the speakers that may be outside, guide them in. Maybe we could have the sergeant at arms help us with that, those that are in wheelchairs and -- Lucila Azcarate: Good evening, Chairman Gonzalez and members of the Commission. My name is Lucila Azcarate. I represent the family of Carroll Manor, as neighbors of the proposed project. We support the proposed application, and feel it -- that it provides a true public purpose for our community. We thank you for your great effort, and thanks for everything that they been going to Carroll Manor to say hello to us, and all of them, very kind and very useful. God bless you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Maybe I should have said it in Spanish. All right. Anyone else? Ms. Dougherty: OK No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. At this time, what we'll do is we'll -- Ms. Dougherty: No. I haven't finished my presentation. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no. At this time -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- since we took care of all those that were in wheelchairs, and we wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity to go on home -- I'm sure they want to get home and be with their families -- we'll go ahead and continue with the presentation, and -- City ofMiami Page 166 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: Before we ever start in any of our Planning & Zoning items, the Commission always requests that we meet with our neighbors, and they insist on that before you ever vote, so we did that. We've met with all of our neighbors, and we thought we've alleviated many of their concerns. We've met and received the support of our adjacent neighborhoods, Natoma Manors and Bay Heights, and their residents are here this afternoon and are ready to testify in support. We also have the support of the Bay Heights Improvement Association, as I said, Natoma Manors Association, Cocoanut Grove Village Council, the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, the Brickell Homeowners Association, Grove Isle Hotel & Spas, Grove Isle Marina, Beacon Harbor, 100 percent of its residents, and approximately 400 letters in support -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- and we're going to hand them -- Bill Thompson is going to hand out the letters of support right now. I also would like to point out -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Make sure that you give a copy to the Clerk. Thank you. You may proceed. Ms. Dougherty: We've fried to show, diagrammatically, the support we've received. Vice Chairman Sanchez: More papers? Ms. Dougherty: (INAUDIBLE) we have the support of the Herald Manor, right here, Natoma Manor, Bay Heights. We now have a letter from the Archdiocese, on behalf of LaSalle, and the entire Mercy campus, so if you'll look at this diagram, which was done a few days ago, all of this area should be in orange as well. These are our supporters; all of the orange area, and including these dots, including Grove Isle Hotel. I have a letter here from -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Now is it letter of supports or resolutions passed by the homeowner association or civic groups? Ms. Dougherty: We have both, letters in support from the actual homeowners and from Grove Isle Hotel. We have a letter from the Chancellor to Sister Worley in connection with the Archbishop, and one of -- there are two things the Archbishop is saying to us. He says, A, they don't object to this project, and B, they don't have any intention of selling any of their property, meaning the Carroll Manor, the national shrine of Our Lady of Charity, the Archdiocese Youth Center, LaSalle High School, and Saint (UNINTELLIGIBLE)'s Parish because that's always been an issue. Well, there would be a domino down the Mercy campus, and what we have is a letter from the Chancellor and the Archdiocese that they don't have any intention of selling, and in fact, they support the project. We have met with many other people besides the ones that we've just mentioned, and we've been meeting with them over the last year. I'd just like to tell you some of the people that we've met with. We've met with the Brickell Homeowners Association, the Grove Isle Hotel & Spas, the Grove Isle Marina Association, Beacon Harbor, Coconut Grove Merchants Association, Glencoe Neighborhood Association, several residents, Bay Colony Condominium, Grove Hill, Beacon Reef Condominium, Coconut Grove Sailing Club, Civic Association, Grove House Artist, and numerous other individuals living in the neighborhood, so we've made the effort and the outreach that know that you would ask us to do, butt want to talk about another important aspect of this application. We think, from a purely land use standpoint, this is a compelling application, but it's more than that. It's more than that, and it's more than Coconut Grove as a district, and it doesn't affect just the Coconut Grove residents. It affects the citizens who use Mercy Hospital. It affects the doctors and the nurses, the orderlies, and all the employees of Mercy Hospital. That's who this affects, and what this proposal will do will bring $100 million infusion into Mercy Hospital, and you're going to hear from Sister Elizabeth Worley, who was the former president of the board of directors for Mercy City ofMiami Page 167 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Hospital for 20 years, and she'll tell you that it was always the intent ofMercy Hospital to sell this property for an infusion of cash to support the hospital and their mission. She'll also -- you'll also hear from Dr. Horstmyer as to how critical these funds are to the hospital, and from Dr. Greer, who will tell you the benefits that this hospital brings to this community, so with that, I'd like to turn it over to Sister Worley. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairman, point of order. I would like to object to any testimony or evidence that pertains to Mercy Hospital. This is not about Mercy Hospital. This is about a parcel of land located within the parent tract owned by Mercy Hospital and the interpretation of the Grovenor ordinance, the G/I ordinance. This is nothing but fluff. It has no evidentiary value. I need to have the Commission focus on the true facts before us, and on that basis, I would ask the Chairman to receive that objection -- Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Attorney. Mr. Lukacs: -- and preclude testimony on that. Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Attorney, would you please give me some guidance? Is the attorney correct -- Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Yes -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- on his statement or --? Ms. Chiaro: -- sir, but this Commission applies the rules of evidence in a very broad way. There is pretty broad discretion about that which is introduced and that which is considered by the Commission. It has been your policy to take testimony. The lower boards have received testimony in opposite of these issues, and in fact, have -- there have been questions at the lower board related to this. You can give the weight of that which is presented to you whatever you wish, but the rules of evidence are not strictly applied. Chairman Gonzalez: So what you're telling me, in one word, is thatl cannot allow anyone to speak in reference to Mercy Hospital? Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. That's not -- Ms. Chiaro: What I'm saying is that you may consider testimony related to Mercy Hospital or you may not, but you can give it the weight that you wish. You can limit the testimony, and you can take the information that's offered or not at your discretion. Commissioner Sarnoff Madam City Attorney, what is in front of us today? What two ordinances -- what two matters are in front of us? Ms. Chiaro: A change to the Comprehensive Plan and a change in land use. Commissioner Sarnoff So no building should be considered today, correct? Ms. Chiaro: How -- yes, that's correct, sir, but there has already been testimony adduced as to the buildings and the plans for the parcel, and in fact, the cross-examination has been allowed for the buildings and the plans for the parcels. Chairman Gonzalez: That is correct. Ms. Dougherty: I think what -- City ofMiami Page 168 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: That is correct. Ms. Dougherty: -- she's saying, it's totally within your discretion as to whether to permit this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I personally would like to hear both sides of the story because it's an unfamiliar thing to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: This -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- me, so I would like to at least hear -- and I'm going to defer to you, Commissioner Sarnoff, but I personally would like to hear both sides -- Mr. Lukacs: Very well. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- the people that are against it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, this -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and the people that are for it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I tend to agree with you. This project has citywide implications, and I think that the more arguments that we are -- hear, the more we're able to make a determined, intelligent decision on this item. Elizabeth Worley: Thank you. My name is Sister Elizabeth Worley. I am the immediate past chairperson of the board ofMercy Hospital for 19 years. I am a sister of St. Joseph, the sponsor ofMercy Hospital. I live on the campus at the convent at 3665 South Miami Avenue. I would like to note that, in 1945, it was the City ofMiami, the city fathers, that requested that a sister's hospital be built, and requested that for the sake of the community ofMiami that was, at that point, beginning to grow and grow rapidly. The service to the community has been the focus of the hospital. It has been the intent of the sisters and Mercy's mission to serve. The parcel that we are discussing with respect to rezoning is obviously being requested for a project. The hospital has held that land in trust. It has deliberately never built anything on it, other than a parking lot, because it was a valuable asset to be used for the sake of the work of the hospital in serving the community, and we feel that rezoning in order to do that now is in the best interest of the community and the best interest ofMercy in serving the community. It certainly does bring tax dollars to the City ofMiami. From our perspective, it is most important because it will provide the opportunity for the renovation to be able to do exactly why we're there -- exactly why we went there, beginning in 1945, and that is to be a hospital in this community and to serve this community well. It has been our intent. This has been a subject for long discussion. It has always been our intent, and that is the reason this land has been saved for the right purpose at the right time. We feel this is it. This is a critical project to Mercy in its service of the community. It will provide renewal of the facility and the technology for you and I, and anyone in our community who needs quality healthcare. The -- neither Mercy nor the sisters of St. Joseph, nor the Archdiocese, as you already heard, have any intent to further develop, other than for the sake of the ministries of education, healthcare, and social services now on that property, have no intent, and in order to document that in the record, I requested yesterday, Monsignor Michael Souckar, the Chancellor of the Archdiocese, to put that in writing, and I believe that has -- it has been read into the record, but that letter is available, that e-mail (electronic mail) note, if you would appreciate seeing that. There is no intent -- there is no domino effect issue here. This one piece has been saved in perpetuity from the beginning of the hospital for exactly this purpose, and I encourage you to consider the rezoning request. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 169 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: I just have one question for you, Sister. When this -- you heard testimony today about the G/I being changed so that you could no longer have a residential development, much like the Grovenor across the street. At the time that it was changed, about two years ago, was the hospital ever notified of that zoning change? Ms. Worley: No. The first heard of that, as a member of the residential area -- I live on that campus. The first heard about it was here, when it was presented at one of the earlier meetings. Thank you. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairperson, I do have a question or two for Sister Worley. Sister, you indicate, as I understand your testimony, that the proceeds of the sale of this parcel are going to assist Mercy in enhancing and bettering the services which Mercy can provide to the community; is that correct? Ms. Worley: That is correct. It will allow us to renovate the existing buildings and to provide the infusion of capital for the renewal of technology. It is not intended to expand the facility larger, but to improve the current facility so that we can serve the community as we are intended to do so. Mr. Lukacs: And wouldn't you agree that that infusion of cash can result from a different buyer or a different purchaser, or perhaps, from the sale of this property to be developed for a use other than as is being proposed by the Related Companies and the applicant today? Ms. Worley: As I' ve said earlier, Mr. Lukacs, we have had the thought about the use of that land in discussion for many, many years, and I'm not going to mention the name of the developer nor of the name of the corporation who had hoped to develop, but you would recognize both readily. We did not entertain those proposals. It was not the right proposal at the right time. We feel this one is. Mr. Lukacs: Sister, most respectfully, if the application for the rezoning is to be denied and this sale does not go through, Mercy is not without an alternative; isn't that correct? Ms. Worley: What do you mean by alternative? Mr. Lukacs: Are you familiar with a publication that was produced by Mercy -- Ms. Worley: Yes, I am. Mr. Lukacs: -- which, essentially -- Ms. Worley: There are uses for which this land may be used. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Ms. Worley: You are correct. As the zoning exists, and I think we've heard discussion, there are uses for which it could be used; medical office building was one of them that was mentioned today; assisted living facility was mentioned; nursing home was mentioned. I believe -- and I'm not an expert, Mr. Lukacs -- they're all included in the current zoning, but all bring to this community, though, some concerns. We've had discussion about traffic. Each of those projects would bring enormous traffic issues that the proposed project does not bring. Secondly, none of those would provide the value to the land that would give Mercy its maximal value for use back to serve the community. Mr. Lukacs: Is this publication, which I'm holding here called Mercy Hospital: A Look into the Future ofMercy Hospital -- is this a publication that was approved by the hospital for City ofMiami Page 170 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 publication to the public at -large? Ms. Worley: I believe it was. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Would you agree that this publication indicated as follows: Should the option Ms. Worley: I'm sorry, Mr. Lukacs. I read that several weeks ago, and I did not memorize it. I can't respond to that. Mr. Lukacs: Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do is just read it in the record because we have court reporters here today to make a record -- Ms. Worley: Fine. Mr. Lukacs: -- for both the developer, as well as the opposers, and it reads as follows: Should the option for high -end condominium project not materialize, the development team has an alternative plan to utilize the parcel's existing G/I zoning designation to develop an assisted living facility, medical facility, or some combination of both. We believe the community clearly should and does have a voice as to what is built on that parcel. Choosing a low -density residential project seems to be prudent course of action, but we are neutral on how Related and Ocean Land choose to develop the property, so therefore, if this property were to be developed for something other than the project which is being proposed today and the sale goes through, Mercy is going to receive that infusion of cash, and you're going to be -- Ms. Worley: I think -- Lukacs: -- able to real -- Ms. Worley: -- though, if you would read back to the last one, if the Ocean Land and Related purchased it at the price that is on the table, what they build on it, as long as it looks good, is not our decision, but there was an issue there, and that was price. If they changed the price, that affects Mercy; that affects what we can do for this community. Mr. Lukacs: Most respectfully, that's an issue between Mercy and the developer and not a subject matter for determination or deliberation by this Commission. Thank you -- Ms. Worley: It is related -- Mr. Lukacs: -- very much, Sister. Ms. Worley: -- to zoning. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I had to step out for a minute. When I left, we were discussing taking the disabled -- Commissioner Sarnoff We did. Chairman Gonzalez: -- persons. We did? Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: We'd like to now call Dr. Pedro Greer and then Dr. Horstmyer. City ofMiami Page 171 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Pedro Greer: Commissioners, my name is Pedro Jose Greer, Jr. My family has been here in Miami since 1944, when my parents came from Cuba. They actually met here in 1945. I grew up in the City ofMiami until we moved to Westchester, which eventually became Westchester, so I have been here my entire life. My children have been born here, as is my wife. I am a physician. I work full-time atMercy Hospital. I'm a gastroenterologist and a liver specialist. My background with the City ofMiami is my deep love for this community, which I was brought up with in the example of my father. Myself as well as with other people, founded the Camillus Health Concern 25 years ago, which serves over 10,000 people yearly for free for this community for the City. In 1991, with Mercy Hospital, we started a clinic in Little Havana, St. John Bosco, and originally, were running the Penalver Clinic, also at a cost completely to Mercy Hospital, without any reimbursing -- imbursement. These are indigent patents which nobody else takes care of and we live in a community, we live in a city, we live in a state, we live in a country which, at this moment, right now is heavily concerned with healthcare delivery, quality healthcare delivery. If you do read the Herald, there was an article -- quality and healthcare is always mentioned but rarely measured. I'm very proud to say that Mercy Hospital had the best outcomes of this entire community, including Baptist and Jackson, in both early diagnosis and outcomes of the patients. Medicine is dependent upon knowledge, training, and technology. We're also dependent upon the illness of a community on what we can handle. The approval of this -- and I know nothing for zoning. It's R2-D2 to me; it's pizza to you -- is -- the reality is that we're dedicated physicians atMercy Hospital. We chose to be there. We take care of everybody that walks into that door, and then we walked outside of that door because, when Camillus Clinic needed a nurse practitioner, which was a good 50 grand, plus everything else along with it, Mercy Hospital came up and gave it to us. When we needed a physician, they did the same thing. When we needed labs, they did the same thing. When patients needed admission, they did the same thing, and as a community service, this is what we do at our hospital. If a sale like this can improve the quality of healthcare for the people that you, sitting there, represent, that's a deep consideration. I understand the limitations of law, but I want you to take it beyond law and think about society and community that you represent. These are human beings. These are individuals. When they are acutely ill, they need care. When they are chronically ill, they need care, and when they need prevention, we're there. I'm proud to be a member of the Mercy family, and I hope that each and every one of you seriously take into considerations the great benefit that this will be to every single citizen in this community. Thank you. Applause. Ms. Dougherty: And Dr. Horstmyer. Jeffrey Horstmyer: Yeah. Thank you so much. I'm Dr. Jeffrey Horstmyer. I'm a resident of Miami, Key Biscayne since 1971, when my family came down to town; graduate of the University ofMiami Medical School; been involved in the FIU (Florida International University) Medical School project for the past 11 years, and am currently president of the medical staff atMercy Hospital. As the president of the medical staff I've been asked to present the consensus feeling of the doctors at Mercy in support of the project, limited to the support of this particular six -acre sale. We feel that it's a quality issue. Mercy Hospital has been able to demonstrate sustained quality of provision of medical services for the past number of years, as illustrated by the J.D. Powers awards three years in a row, which was unheard of as well as by state and national measures of outcomes. For the hospital to continue to be able to provide the tier one level of quality services that we currently provide, we need to renovate the facility. Further, we need to maintain the state-of-the-art technical facilities as well. It's extremely important to -- in particularly, today's world of medicine -- be able to provide the very highest level of medical care. Secondly, it's a strategic issue, and this was one of the points that we used in obtaining approval of the FIU med school is that there is a dwindling supply of physicians that's going to become quite acute over the next five to ten years, and if one wants to recruit the very best physicians into your neighborhood, into the hospital where you want to have yourself or your City ofMiami Page 172 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 family brought in an emergency situation, we're going to have to have a first-rate facility in order to attract those physicians in the future. Further -- and this was well documented in the FIUMedical School presentation to the board of governor and the legislatures. Further, in terms of the hospital becoming a -- maintaining a successful financial operation, we're going to have to have a quality facility in the future. If we were to deteriorate in terms of quality, due to lack of investment, lack of opportunity to invest, then we could easily deteriorate into a tier two or tier three hospital, and that would be the quality offacility in your neighborhood, and number two, it would be a threat to the continued ability of the hospital to maintain a mission in that location, so I think that, in terms of quality offacility, for all the reasons I outlined, it's an important addition to Mercy to be able to sell the six acres for the $100 million to reinvest in the hospital and the community. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: So, in conclusion, these are the benefits we think that we have to this community. A land sale that provides a major community benefit, an excellent alternative in terms of traffic in term -- for residential, as opposed to any other use that's permitted under the GI. The existing loan -- the existing zoning classification allows the same height and the same right of -- same size of building. What we're proposing is a use that is less than the R-3, which is the most immediate abutting zoning classification. We have 300 units total, and we have a covenant that we have -- actually, an agreement that we've proposed with our neighbors that limits this to 300 units for the future, and the most important thing and the most cogent reason why our neighbors are supporting us, meaning Natoma Manors and Bay Heights, is because we have agreed with them -- or Mercy Hospital has agreed to limit its development for the next ten years, so we have a funding for the bay walk. We have a beautiful building that's going to be there, and with literally no impact on the community, and for that reason, we'd urge your support for this project. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Goggins: Point -- I'm sorry. Point of order, Mr. Chair. The presentation began at 5:20. It's roughly 6:35 at this point, so -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's what I was going to ask. Mr. Goggins: -- hour fifteen, with cross -- time for cross-examination and the disabled witnesses. Ms. Dougherty: Well, let's just ask them what's the time, how many minutes. Ms. Burns: We have kept the time, and we show 40 minutes on the presentation. Mr. Goggins: Forty minutes, so request that the opposition take -- have 40 minutes as well? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Ms. Dougherty: And we would also reserve some time for rebuttal. Mr. Goggins: Thank you. Mr. Lukacs, who represents Grove Isle, will be making the first presentation. I will be making a presentation on behalf of Constance Steen, a woman who lives in the neighborhood. We have several interested people, people who are active in the community, people who live in the neighborhood, who will be making presentations, so we'll start now with Mr. Lukacs's presentation. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, but my question is, the people that are active in the community that City ofMiami Page 173 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 want to do a presentation, is that going to be included on the time that you --? Mr. Goggins: It would be included in the time, yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: In the time -- Mr. Goggins: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so it's going to be 40 minutes. Mr. Goggins: It'll be 40 minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, good. Go ahead. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is John Lukacs, with offices at 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. I have the privilege of representing the board of directors of Grove Isle Association, Inc., which vigorously opposes the application before you today. For the record, our objections have been consistently advanced both before the Zoning Board, as well as the Planning Advisory Board, and we incorporate all of our objections and those of the other objectors into the record for purposes of this hearing. The requested upzoning from G/I to R-4 is wrong. The applicant, the Related Companies and Mercy Hospital, as the case may be, are not legally entitled to the Comprehensive Plan amendment nor the upzoning that they have requested. The applicants are attempting to do indirectly what this Commission has said they can't do directly. On September 27, 2004, the City Commission, upon a unanimous recommendation of the Planning Advisory Board, adopted an ordinance providing for a text amendment of the then G/I zoning classification specifying that when a G/I zoned property is not going to be used for government and institutional uses, it can only be used for the least intensive abutting zoning district. Prior to this text amendment, the G/I ordinance provided that when G/I zoned property ceased to be used for governmental and institutional uses, it could be used, in the case of residential uses, to an intensity ofR-4. It is precisely the R-4 intensity that was in the prior G/I ordinance that was eliminated by the City Commission in September of 2004 that is being sought by these applicants today. The developer is, in effect, asking this Commission to remove the restrictions imposed by the 2004 text amendment to the G/I zoning classification. The text amendment to the G/I ordinance came about as a result of an application by the Planning and Zoning Department. Before you, you see a planning fact sheet, which accompanied the proposed text amendment in 2004, which provided a background and an analysis which I believe speaks volumes. That background and analysis provides as follows: The proposed amendment is in order to prevent incompatible uses from occurring within low -density neighborhoods when a G/I zoned property ceases to be used for government and/or institutional uses. It's noteworthy that the applicant here is the Planning and Zoning Department. It's also noteworthy that the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval, with a vote of 8/0, to the City Commission. The G/I ordinance, which was adopted on September 27, 2004, contained whereas clauses, or recitals, as we know them, as we see in every ordinance, but most noteworthy is the recitals on this one. The very last one indicates, "Whereas the City Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, has reviewed this ordinance, and after considering the staff recommendation, as well as the public's testimony, has determined that this ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of the City ofMiami." Pursuant to section one of that ordinance, that very powerful recital was incorporated as an integral part of the overall ordinance. The text amendment, just like all other zoning classification, was intended to benefit the public as a whole, not a select few. The citizens of the City ofMiami have the absolute right to rely upon the existing G/I ordinance as it was amended in 2004. It was for their benefit and it was in their best interest, in the words of the City Commission, that that ordinance was adopted. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, it is the law. This is why we're here today. Our existing land use zoning designations were adopted because they were based upon a rational and sound planning principle and after doing thoughtful consideration of the rights of all City ofMiami Page 174 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 affected persons. Within the Planning Department you have different divisions. If you go to the City ofMiami Planning Department Web site, you'll see that the Planning Department has two specific divisions; one's called a Land Development Division, the other is the Urban Design Division. The Land Development Division, ifyou look on the Web site, is responsible for, among other things, to analyze and make recommendations on development proposals, on changes of zoning, and on land use designation changes that affect the general welfare of the City ofMiami. The Urban Design Section, as defined on the City ofMiami Planning Department's Web site, indicates that that division is responsible for developing and implementing a visionary plan for the future development of the City ofMiami as a whole. On April 4, 2006, the City ofMiami Planning Department, by and through those two divisions, conducted what is referred to as design review comments. They essentially approached three different topics. They spoke to the issue of zoning, urban design, and architecture. The most significant and noteworthy commentary by these two divisions of our Planning Department is that which is highlighted on this exhibit. The change of zoning of this property from G/I to R-4, combined additional FAR (floor area ratio) gained from bay frontage and adjacent roads, results in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions of this area. We heard testimony from Mr. Fort -Brescia. He doesn't believe that's the case. Our own Planning Department, on April 4, 2006, believed that was the case. They undertook an analysis; they undertook a review. The Urban Design and Land Development sections came to these conclusions because they utilized the entire staff as is indicated in this memo ofApril 4, 2006. That commentary on zoning, which is entirely pertinent to today's discussion, indicates that the FAR bonuses in the application further exacerbate the situation, and here is the most significant observation by those divisions. Our Planning Department, the City ofMiami, said the Planning Department feels that this project is out of scale with the area, and that if the applicant chooses to rezone the property, it should be to a land use that is consistent with the adjacent neighborhood, which, in this case, is R-1. Planning Department comments, in summary, are that the project density was inappropriate; the project was out of scale; rezoning should be to R-1, and the land use should be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. It appears that all of these reasons were the reasons that the Zoning Board, and the Planning Advisory Board, and those who were not in favor of this application going forward felt the same way. I submit to you that the Planning Department's conclusions and opinions as ofApril 4, 2006, were correct and should be applied today. Well, what happened after April 4, 2006? Why are we here today? The reason why we're here today is because the Planning Department, for some inexplicable reason, went ahead and reversed itself. You heard the opening statements by the Planning Department official today. I can't understand how the Planning Department could have reached that conclusion. We did a public records request. We visited the Planning Department. We reviewed all of the papers in their files. There were no studies. There were no analysis. Where was the analysis? It didn't exist. How do you determine that a project is out of scale or not -- or in scale, I should say, just like Mr. Fort -Brescia? Well, you go ahead and you consider some maps and you consider some drawings, and you have some discussions with your staff and -- I mean, that's what architects do. That's not what the Planning Department did on April 4, 2006. What the Planning Department did was they pulled together two significant divisions of that department, and the entire staff expressed a unified opinion that those four conclusions were reached upon examination and an evaluation of this project. That alone is enough to deny this application. What did occur is we went through the public records. We did find that there was a -- well, actually, here. I'm a little bit ahead of myself. What we did was we went ahead and superimposed the proposed project to some photographs on the shoreline to demonstrate the four criteria or the four comments that were made by our Planning Department. Project density inappropriate, project out of scale. Look at that in relationship to those other R-3 properties. Rezoning should be to R-1. That's what it looks like at Glencoe and South Bayshore Drive. Land use should be consistent with adjacent neighborhood. What happened? Well, what happened was is, on April 20, 2006, there was a meeting had called a pre -application meeting. At that meeting there were nine persons in attendance. We had a representative from the City of Miami Planning Department. We had a representative from the City Manager's Office, and the other seven individuals were the team of advocates and experts and representatives from the City ofMiami Page 175 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Related Company [sic], including lawyers, representatives of the Related Company [sic], as well asArquitectonica representatives, the firm that Mr. Fort -Brescia is involved with. Subsequent to that meeting, and there's no telling how many other meetings may have occurred between that and the Zoning Board meeting, which was held or at least scheduled to be held some time in July, but subsequent to that meeting, our Planning Department provided, for the very first time, a written analysis of this project, and let me share that with you. This analysis, essentially, says we recommend approval of the change of zoning as a component of the Major Use Special Permit application, but look at the findings, if you would. The first one says is that the proposed zoning change encompasses the southwestern boundary of the Mercy site. OK. I could have gleaned that from the site plan. That's only one sheet. Let's go to the second finding. It is found that this change of zoning is in order to develop three residential towers consisting of 300 residential units and 642 parking spaces. Well, I could have taken a look at the second page of the plans, which is the data sheet, and I could have gleaned that information from there as well. Let me skip to the fourth one because the third one is the one I really want to focus on. The fourth one says it's found that the requested zoning designation change is not consistent with the underlying land use designation, and therefore, does not require an amendment to the future land use map of the comp plan. Again, rocket science not required. That's something that could be very easily ascertained by looking at the comp plan, but let's look at number three. It is found that the requested change to R-4 multifamily high -density residential designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the proposed residential use at the above -described location, and therefore, should be changed as part of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Greater flexibility? Any time you upzone a piece of property, you provide the owner or the developer with greater flexibility. How in the world does greater flexibility translate to a recommendation of a change of zoning on this property involving very complex issues? This one page document is the only analysis for a zoning change that existed in the Planning Department files, and if there are other studies, or if there are other analysis, they weren't made available. This is it. This so-called analysis, plain and simple, is not an analysis at all. It contains no underlying facts, no chain of underlying reasoning, and merely, in an absolutely conclusory fashion, recommends that a change of zoning be had. This non -analysis is absurd. Nowhere in the Planning Department's files is there a reference to the criteria set out in the Zoning Code, no reference to 2210, which are the criteria that you'll all be considering in whether or not a change of zoning should occur. This so-called analysis by our Planning Department should be rejected outright and totally disregarded. Let's not forget the memo, the very honest, the very hardworking result of the two divisions, Urban Design and Land Development, when they reviewed this project and concluded it's wholly inappropriate for the subject area. This development is out of scale, notwithstanding the testimony that you've heard here today. It is out of scale with the adjacent single-family homes. It's out of scale with the entire neighborhood. If constructed, the immense size, the height, the bulk, the mass will irreparably and adversely affect Grove Isle's quality of life, light and view, and negatively impact its market value, as well as the market value of the surrounding area. It will totally envelope and overwhelm a low -scaled character of the surrounding area. The project is, by any standard, wholly out of scale with anything in and around it, not to mention, the noise, the dirt, the dust, the vibration, the traffic condi -- congestion, the maintenance of traffic that's going to have to be addressed as a part of the construction of this project, which we have been told will span somewhere near six years. The G/I ordinance, as it was amended in 2004, was for the protection of the citizens of the City ofMiami, and as indicated in the plain language of the ordinance, was adopted because it was in the best interest of those citizens that it be adopted. Developer's request to upzone and to develop the subject property at a density higher than R-1 is unreasonable, it's unacceptable and does not support any legitimate governmental and/or community interest. The requested rezoning would, essentially, accord this developer treatment to the subject property for the sole development of the developer. You're carving out an exception. You're carving out a parcel of a parent tract owned by Mercy Hospital for their benefit. If you carve it out for something less intense, something like we heard -- there were other alternatives in the publication by Mercy Hospital -- so be it, but the fact of the matter is, this carving out and granting of an R-4 zoning classification is tantamount to spot zoning, which is usually thought of as giving preferential City ofMiami Page 176 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole, and that's significant; preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. To adopt this change would be irrational, arbitrary, and capricious. The requested upzoning does not, in any way, shape, or form, bear any relationship, substantial or otherwise, to the public health, safety, and welfare of your community. In addition, the requested zoning, notwithstanding the testimony that we heard, is wholly inconsistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, which will be addressed in detail by my colleagues, Mr. Goggin [sic], Mr. Devine, and Mr. Bloch. Mercy Hospital is not without any alternatives. The applicant, Mercy Hospital, their entire advocacy team are entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts, and the fact of the matter is, the intent of this ordinance was to protect against the precise actions that are being sought by the developer in this case. There is no substantial competent evidence offered to justify a departure from the G/I ordinance, andl disagree with the experts because I believe the intent of this ordinance is something that must control your decision today. We can hear all about Mercy Hospital. We can hear about all the great things that it did, but that's really not relevant. What we're dealing with here is an interpretation of an ordinance, the interpretation of the intent of a Commission, findings of fact in the record that are admissions against interest by your Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as our lawmakers, it's your obligation to enforce the law, and most importantly, to protect the rights of the citizens for which this ordinance was designed to protect. I thank you very much for your time, and I respectfully urge your denial of these applications. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Goggins: Good evening, Mr. Chair and the Commissioners. My name is Patrick Goggins. I here -- I'm here representing Constance Steen, whose address is 1632 South Bayshore Court. We're here today because the applicant is asking the Commission to create the firstR-4 zoning classification ever in Coconut Grove. I submit that this is not a decision that should be takely [sic] -- taken lightly by the members of this Commission. The application should not be approved because, one, the proposed change would violate the Grovenor ordinance. The proposed change does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code, specifically 2210, pertaining to upzoning. The proposed change would constitute spot zoning. The proposed change violates the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The proposed change would allow the tallest building in Coconut Grove ever. The proposed change would allow a building that is twice as high as any building within a one -mile radius of the project site. The Zoning Board recommended that this application be denied. The Planning Advisory Board recommended that this application be denied. This Commission should deny this application. Now the memorandum that I've distributed to opposing counsel, the Clerk, and the Commission sets forth my arguments in more detail. I would like to just summarize a few short points. Again, on the Grovenor ordinance, the testimony was that the subject parcel does not touch any other residential -- any other use. The subject property is surrounded with governmental and institutional land, so in making a determination, this Commission should not go to the Comprehensive Plan and make its own decision. You look at the entire parcel. IfI have a pizza and I cut out a slice, I look at the crust to see what is the least intensive abutting use, and the least intensive abutting use on the pie -- that is, the Mercy parcel -- is R-1. Bayshore Drive is all R-1; it abuts the Mercy parcel. By operation of the Grovenor ordinance, the applicable zoning classification would be R-1. Now the developers argued that this application -- they -- with the larger units and, you know, less density, you're actually getting less density than was allowed under R-3. That's incorrect because, under R-1 you're not going to get 300 units. The applicable classification is R-1, and this Commission should deny the application because they're seeking to violently increase the density on this parcel from what's allowed under the law. The proposed ordinance that is before the Commission today has to meet the requirements of Section 2210 of the Code, and I won't bore you with a detailed analysis of it, but you look at the ordinance and you look at the Code, they don't match. As matter of law, the proposed ordinance City ofMiami Page 177 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 assigned would be legally insufficient and subject to a, I think, valid challenge. Again, like Mr. - - as Mr. Lukacs said, the proposed change constitutes spot zoning. Spot zoning is when you make a change not because of the decisions of the -- considerations of the public good. It becomes considerations of well, Mercy Hospital needs money to improve their property. The other consideration is that the developer wouldn't make enough money if they built one that was smaller. Those are not public considerations. Those -- that constitutes spot zoning, and again, if approved, this project would be subject to a challenge for spot zoning, but I, again, urge this Commission to not approve this application. The rest of my analysis is contained in more detail in the memorandum. I would like, at this time, to call Mr. Blumberg to testify. Max Blumberg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Max Blumberg, a trustee of the Vizcaya Museum & Gardens Trust, and past president of the support group. I'm here to speak against the proposed development for the irrevocable damage that it will cause to Vizcaya Museum & Gardens. A major scholarly book that was just published last month calls Vizcaya an extraordinary national and international treasure, and an architectural and landscape masterpiece. The developer mentioned the many entities that they spoke to, but Vizcaya was not one of them. The proposed residential towers, at the scaled planned, would have irrevocable negative impact upon Vizcaya's view shed and the visitor experience ofMiami's only public national historic landmark. The proposed towers would dominate the view from Vizcaya's main house and gardens. It would be nothing less than a disaster for Vizcaya. Debates about view shed protection are not uncommon in a rapidly developing world. This has been a hot topic in Virginia, where the Thomas Jefferson Foundation works closely with local government and developers on the design of new construction within the Monticello view shed to protect the integrity of the site, and the Trust for Public Lands has worked arduously to protect views at numerous historic properties, including George Washington's Mt. Vernon, which was threatened by development across the river. The National Park Service even maintains a watch list for the endange -- or there's an endangered list for national historic landmarks whose integrity is threatened. Diminished or otherwise compromised view sheds have been the basis for a number of national historic landmarks being placed on this list, and Vizcaya's integrity and status are in grave danger. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has led efforts to protect the view shed of numerous sites that are historic, and they've determined that a compromised view shed would significantly mar the integrity and visitors experience and undermine earned income of these sites. Based on the National Trust concerns, local jurisdictions have rejected many plans for the development of such sites. Most states have view shed protection legislative for historic properties. While we don't have this protection in Florida, we appeal to the City ofMiami to prevent the destruction of Vizcaya's view shed. We heard tonight that Mercy will not permit further development for ten years. That's a blink in time, and this sets a precedent for future development of the site, even closer to Vizcaya Museum & Gardens. There's no question that this current development will irreparably damage Vizcaya's beauty and integrity, significantly undermine its capacity to earn income, which is its livelihood through admissions, through facility rentals, and diminish support for the organization in the future. It's not possible to put a price tag on this damage. The developer has not examined the impact of this project on Vizcaya, and -- which is an historically designated property, and I trust that the City ofMiami Commission will require the developer to address this issue as Vizcaya will sustain massive damages. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Ms. Dougherty: I just have a question. I have a question for you, please. I have a question. Mr. Goggins: Mr. Blumberg. Mr. Blumberg: Yes. City ofMiami Page 178 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: Which organization do you represent? Mr. Blumberg: I'm speaking as a private citizen, but I'm a trustee of the Vizcaya Museum & Gardens Trust. Ms. Dougherty: So you don't have a resolution from the Viz --? Mr. Blumberg: No, we do not have a resolution from the Trust. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Are you aware of how long a distance this is away from Vizcaya? Mr. Blumberg: I heard tonight that it's 1, 600 feet. The issue was the view shed, and a 50-story building -- or three 50-story buildings would certainly be very much in the view shed of Vizcaya. In addition, I referred to the potential for future changes if this is accepted, you know, directly on the edge of Vizcaya Gardens. Ms. Dougherty: Well, first of all, it's not a 50-story building, but are you aware of the most important historic disfrict in Miami Beach, the Art Deco District? Mr. Blumberg: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: And are there high-rises around there? Mr. Blumberg: There are high-rises, but not within the historic disfrict itself. Ms. Dougherty: Well, but they are within walking distance, within visitors district -- in fact, they are immediately across the street from the historic disfrict. Mr. Blumberg: That is true, but you may want to equate the historic district with the Vizcaya Museum & Gardens. I would not do so. I think that would be debatable. Ms. Dougherty: What about the Je -- what about Jesuit Church downtown? Are you aware that it's directly across the streetfrom high-rises? Mr. Blumberg: Again, I would not equate that with Vizcaya Museum & Gardens, and I'd like to provide you with the recent book that was published to educate you about Vizcaya, and its significance, and its international recognition, as well as its importance to -- Ms. Dougherty: There is no doubt -- Mr. Blumberg: -- Miami. Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- about it -- Mr. Blumberg: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- but -- and let me just say this to you. If you can see this from Vizcaya, we will gran-- plant the biggest trees you have ever seen to assure that you won't even see this building. We don't believe that you will ever see this building from Vizcaya. Just look at it. I mean, all -- you don't have to believe me. You look at where you are. Mr. Blumberg: I -- as I said, I think that since there has never been any communication between Vizcaya Museum & Gardens and the developer, that, you know, we would like very much for that to happen, and in that case, we'd have a chance to understand the impact, and certainly to ensure that the developer would understand the impact. As we see it now, it's disastrous. City ofMiami Page 179 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: OK, but you're speaking as a private citizen. Mr. Blumberg: I am speaking as a private citizen. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Mr. Blumberg: Thank you. Applause. Mr. Goggins: I'd like to call Mr. Aguirre. Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Lady and gentlemen of the Commission, my name is Horacio Stuart Aguirre, residing at 1910 Northwest 13 Street, Miami, Florida 33125. I come to you as an individual resident of this community for the last, gree -- I believe, since 1953. I'm president of the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, past president ofMiami Neighborhoods United. Like the fine doctor that spoke, I also graduated from the University ofMiami with an MBA (Master of Business Administration). I'm a commercial real estate professional and a mortgage broker licensee. I'd like to say that the developer is, indeed, a fine gentleman, and the good sisters ofMercy Hospital have, indeed, been doing the Lord's work for many years in service to this community, and we recognize that, and we applaud it, but nonetheless, this project is unquestionably the wrong use of this land and would be to the great detriment of the Roads Neighborhood and the Coconut Grove neighborhoods and to all that drive on Bayshore Drive. Those that learned our civics lessons in this wonderful country learned that the single-family neighborhoods were held as sacred as the family homestead and as the family itself. The concept of invading the environs of single-family neighborhoods with millions of cubic yards of concrete and hundreds, if not a thousand additional automobiles for the sheer sake of financial profit has historically been considered sacrilegious to the tenets of good government of this country. These neighborhoods do not need a mega project. They do not want a mega project, and approving them would not only be nothing less than shameful theft of the quality of life for the residents of this community. I'd like to remind you that I've spoken to you for the last three years, and I've spoken to you and told you of the upcoming collapse of the condominium market, and I predicted it, and I'm embarrassed to say that, for once, I was right. The collapse has come. As recently as last week, the New York Times published a front - page story listing Miami as one of the four cities with a condominium collapse, and that is going to bring about a bigger nightmare than you've ever experienced in this community. I strongly urge you to decline this project as proposed. Thank you very much. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Goggins: I'd like to call Elvis Cruz, please. Moving on, Nina West, please. Nina West: Nina West, 3690Avocado Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm here on behalf ofMiami Neighborhoods United. We are here to ask the Commission to please -- to defend the ordinance, GI zoning to protect the city. This is a citywide issue. There are GI properties all over the city. This -- the governing body unanimously voted, enthusiastically, for the ordinance when it was designed. It was said at that time -- and I was at the meeting -- that there would never be another Grovenor situation anywhere in the City ofMiami; that the ordinance was for us, and that you would uphold the ordinance, so that is what I am asking you to do. Every Commissioner here has tons of G/I property, and they are surrounded by single-family neighborhoods, and each one of you was elected by the representatives who live in, mostly, these single-family neighborhoods, and even here tonight, we have condominium representatives who City ofMiami Page 180 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 have elected you, who are asking you to maintain the G/I zoning, so I beg that you do. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, here is a picture of the property as it appeared in the public notice in the newspaper. This picture is misleading and deceptive. Why? Because here is a true picture of the platted property in question, as shown by the County tax records. It is much larger. Here it is on the City Zoning map. The least intense abutting district to the Mercy Hospital property is R-1, at the top, by Bay Heights. What this proposal does is to carve out a portion of the property that does not abut R-1, but rather, R-3, in an attempt to evade both the spirit and letter of the GI ordinance. Not only should you not allow this manipulative precedent to be set, you should strengthen the GI ordinance by amending it to specifically prevent this sort of evasive maneuvering in the future. Otherwise, what's to prevent any GI property in the City from being strategically subdivided to circumvent the ordinance. The applicants have said they could build a maximum of 425 units under R-3, so we should think that 300 units under R-4 is somehow better. That statement assumes that the maximum density is an entitlement, which it is not, so that the neighbors will be fooled into thinking thatR-4 is the lesser evil. Very importantly, the attorneys who represent developers here at City Hall routinely mislead the advisory boards and this Commission by saying that they can build a project to its maximum intensity "as of right. " Not true, as per Section 2301 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance. "In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this zoning ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements or maximum limitations." That means that density, FAR, and height limits are maximums, not entitlements. This fact was verified by the Miami City Attorney in the Morningside case, and I asked the City Attorney to correct me ifI am wrong on that point. At the Zoning Board the applicant did not mention the inconvenient truth that R-3 has a 50-foot height limit. No part of this property abuts R-4, only R-1 and R-3. Furthermore, zoning decisions made by the City Commission should be based on public benefit or to compensate for a hardship and not on a desired profit motive. There is no public benefit to justify this upzoning, nor is there a hardship. The land pays no taxes, so the applicant doesn't even have carrying costs. The applicants have said they need the money from this land sale to buy medical equipment, even though they have also said that medical equipment quickly becomes obsolete as the technology improves. They also said they want the money to do remodeling and that they expect to spend it all in two to three years, but by common business practice, all of those expenditures should be paid for by recurring revenues, not by a one-time land sale. What will they do the next time they need medical equipment or remodeling? Will they sell another piece of land? How does every other hospital in the country that doesn't have waterfront acreage to sell still manage to survive? The applicant said their emergency room doubled in patient volume in recent years. Shouldn't this land be saved for future medical needs? There is no shortage of R-4 land in the City. I urge you to deny this upzoning. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Mr. Goggins: John Devine, please. Ms. Dougherty: Could I just ask Elvis Cruz a question, please? Mr. Cruz: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Dougherty: You do live in Morningside, correct? Mr. Cruz: I do. I'm very familiar with this issue because of my experiences there, as you're well aware. City ofMiami Page 181 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: OK. The most immediate abutting zoning classification -- I don't think that you meant to mislead everybody to thinking it's R-1. It's really R-3, isn't it? Mr. Cruz: No, ma'am. Would you like to see the map, again? It's the County map. I did not make it up. Ms. Dougherty: The most immediate abutting zoning classification to the property that we are rezoning is R-3. Mr. Cruz: The close -- well, what you're doing is you're frying to carve out a piece of one large property. Ms. Dougherty: This is correct. Mr. Cruz: The lowest is -- Ms. Dougherty: This is the -- Mr. Cruz: -- R-1. Ms. Dougherty: -- only place that we are asking for a rezoning is in this one -- Mr. Cruz: The closest is R-3. Ms. Dougherty: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Cruz: You are correct. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. That's all I had. Mr. Lukacs: I just want to object. The legal standard is not immediate abutting; it's abutting. Mr. Cruz: Do you have any other questions for me, Ms. Dougherty? Is that it? Chairman Gonzalez: Any other questions? Ms. Dougherty: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm -- Mr. Cruz: OK, thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. John Devine: Good evening. My name is John Devine. I live at 1717 South Bayshore Drive, a short distance from the project site. I am opposed to this project. I've been opposed to it fi^om day one. I remain opposed to it, and I urge you to deny the application. The Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan has a goal that -- for the City to maintain a land use pattern that protects and enhances the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. Further, it requires that the City enforce, and where necessary, strengthen those sections of the land development regulations that are intended to preserve and enhance the appearance and the character of the City's neighborhoods. As the applicant's expert testified, the entire Code must be read as a whole and in its entirety. This is a very important part of our Code. Coconut Grove is a low -density, low-rise neighborhood, predominated by R-1 single-family homes. There is no R-4 zoning and unlimited height development in Coconut Grove. The City recognizes this distinct character and has historically preserved it. Our zoning scheme codifies it. Coconut City ofMiami Page 182 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Grove is contained within a neighborhood conservation district, the purpose of which to preserve the neighborhood character and promote compatible development by regulating new construction. Within that conservation district, we have special disfricts. Special districts may only be created by the City in general areas where there exists, through official designation, a special and substantial public interest in the protection of the existing character of the area. The special districts in Coconut Grove all have maximum height limitations. They range from 26 feet up to 220 feet. The 220-foot maximum limit is across the street here, and it's in a very limited geographic area. Everywhere else in the Grove is zoned accordingly to protect the character, so the Zoning Ordinance -- the scheme is clear. Coconut Grove is low -density, low-rise. There is no R-4, high -density, and unlimited height development, and the City has determined that there is a special and substantial public interest in the protection of this existing character. Now go ahead and compare this zoning scheme to some of the other zoning schemes we have in the City ofMiami. Look at the Brickell Area Office Residential Disfrict, Special Disfrict 5. Look at the Central Commercial Residential District, Special District 6. The Central Brickell Rapid Transit Commercial Residential Disfrict, SD-7; the Miami Design District, SD-8, and SD-15, the River Quadrant Mixed -Use District. In those disfricts, there -- they have been designated for high -density and unlimited height development. This project belongs elsewhere; it doesn't belong in Coconut Grove. The project is simply not compatible with the character of Coconut Grove, as evidenced by the existing zoning scheme, and is, therefore, inconsistent with the neighborhood plan. For that reason, it must be denied. Further, to amend our Zoning Ordinance and the Future Land Use Map, the Code provides that the Planning Department must opine that the rezoning requested is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lukacs showed us a couple of planning reports. The first planning report, dated --I believe itwas April 4, 2006, said it was incompatible. It didn't work for the area, very clear. The second -- and I'm going to call this the City Manager -influenced planning report listed a bunch of -- well, I don't know what they were. They justified approving this on greater flexibility in developing the property. Well, that's not a criteria, and as a matter of fact, that criteria only applies in the general downtown area, and particularly, along the Miami River, so that's not even a criteria to be applied. As a matter of law, this application has to be denied. I have met with the developer. The developer did reach out to me, and we had a very nice talk, and he told me how it was going to be, OK. The developer understands the character of Coconut Grove, low -density, low height buildings. The developer has said the developer can build a low height, low -density project on the subject property, but they're not going to do it, and the reason why they're not going to do it is because they don't make enough money. It's not that they're going to lose money. They won't make enough money. It's very clear this developer, despite all of the marketing materials and all of the presentations, cares nothing about the character of Coconut Grove. You do. I urge you to deny the application, to enforce our ordinances, and to protect our neighborhoods. In addition, when you look at the considerations in Section 2210 of the Code, this application should be denied. As previously stated, it is not in conformity with the neighborhood plan. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're referring to the Zoning Code, correct? Mr. Devine: Yes, sir. It is contrary to the established land use pattern in Coconut Grove. We don't have any R-4 here. It will create isolated disfricts unrelated to the adjacent properties, both with the project itself and with the Bay Heights and the Natoma Manors areas, which, pursuant to these secret agreements, the public understands that there's going to be some road closures. That creates additional isolated areas. It is out of scale with the neighborhood. The Planning Department says that. It will materially alter the population density of the neighborhood. We're going to R-4, high -density. It will overtax South Miami Avenue, South Bayshore Drive, and 17th Avenue, not because of only the traffic emanating from and entering the project site, but because of the road closures in Bay Heights and Natoma Manors and how that's going to further stress our existing roads. It will both excessively -- will both create and excessively increase traffic congestion for the same reasons. It will grant a special privilege to Mercy Hospital, in essence, as a land speculator. They are going ahead and entitling property for a much more higher profit. There are no substantial reasons why the use of the property is City ofMiami Page 183 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 unfairly limited under the existing zoning, and further, it's not difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use. I've just enumerated several districts right in the community here, just up the street, where this project would be perfectly appropriate. I urge you to deny the application. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Mr. Goggins: A point of order for the Clerk. How much time is remaining? Chairman Gonzalez: None, I believe. Ms. Burns: Three minutes. Mr. Goggins: Three minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: Three minutes. Mr. Goggins: OK I'd like to -- Ms. Dougherty: I have a question. Mr. Goggins: For Mr. Devine? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Goggins: OK. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Devine, were you speaking on behalf of a client or an expert -- are you an expert? What is your --? Mr. Devine: An expert in what? Ms. Dougherty: In zoning and planning. Mr. Devine: No. I'm not -- Ms. Dougherty: Are you an expert? Mr. Devine: I wouldn't say that I'm an expert, no. I don't hold myself out as an expert, but I have read the neighborhood plan. Ms. Dougherty: OK. What do you think that the Ritz Carlton, for example, is zoned? Mr. Devine: I have no idea. Ms. Dougherty: What ifI told you it allows 150 units per acre, would you believe me? Mr. Devine: I don't know. Ms. Dougherty: How about Bayshore Drive, where the SBS (Spanish Broadcasting System) Tower is? Mr. Devine: There's a special district, I understand, between Aviation and Bayshores [sic] City ofMiami Page 184 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Drive, Tigertail, where the maximum height limit is permitted to go up to 220 feet. Ms. Dougherty: That's correct, but how many units, density? Mr. Devine: I was talking about height and density. I don't -- Ms. Dougherty: You wouldn't know? Mr. Devine: -- know. I don't -- Ms. Dougherty: IfI told you 150, would you believe me, 150 units per acre? Mr. Devine: As long as you're telling me the truth, I would believe you. Ms. Dougherty: Well, I'm just asking you. Mr. Devine: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: Would you believe -- Mr. Devine: -- I'm telling you. Ms. Dougherty: -- me? Would you dispute this? Mr. Devine: I dispute a lot of things, yeah. Ms. Dougherty: OK, so -- well, I have a zoning map here, and it is zoned SD-17, and I'd ask your Planning Department to verify that 150 units per acre is allowed on South Bayshore Drive all the way up through the Ritz, and it is exactly in scale with what Jack Luft had proposed. In other words, the further away you are, the larger the building that you can have, so you have the Grovenor House, you have SBS Tower, you have the Ritz Carlton, all with the same zoning classification at 150 units per acre, which is allowed in the R-4. Mr. Devine: Are you asking me a question? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Devine: I have no idea what your question is. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Is that the conclusion of their presentation? Mr. Goggins: Is there any more remaining time for the opposition? Chairman Gonzalez: How many minutes did the --? They used 40 minutes, right? Ms. Burns: You had three minutes left. Mr. Goggins: Three minutes left. I'd like to call Grace Solares. Grace Solares: Good afternoon -- Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Ms. Solares: -- Commissioners. The Roads -- my name is Grace Solares. I'm the president of the Roads Association, and the Roads Association opposes this. The Roads Association opposed City ofMiami Page 185 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 this since we found out about it. We contacted our attorney, Tucker Gibbs. He had been in a meeting with us. We told him we were opposed to it. He says I'm representing two other groups. I'm going to find out whether they don't mind you guys joining in opposition at that time; never heard back from Mr. Tucker Gibbs. In any event, I ask you, Commissioner Sanchez, if the Catholic Church -- you don't have to answer, by the way -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I won't. Ms. Solares: OK. If the Catholic Church, who's the greatest real estate holder in the world, who usually buys and sells for a profit, decides to sell the St. Peter & Paul School, which is G/I, and then sell it to the Related Groups [sic] for $92 million, it will revert and will do the same thing as R-4 in the section -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But, Grace -- Ms. Solares: -- and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- let me interrupt you. That is totally irrelevant. Ms. Solares: No, it is not. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, it is, totally irrelevant. Ms. Solares: Because if you rule on this issue, sir, you'd be ruling -- if something comes up in the future right in our section, you're probably ruling the same way. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Couldl ask you a question? Did the -- Ms. Solares: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- homeowner association pass a resolution in opposition? Ms. Solares: Yes, we most certainly did -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Great. Ms. Solares: -- and I think either Mr. Lukacs or you have -- Mr. Goggins has the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Make sure -- Ms. Solares: -- resolution. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you turn it in to the City Clerk. Ms. Solares: OK, so finding this -- I mean, and they do that and they sell it -- because now we know that not only the devil wears Prada, but also the Pope -- and they decide to sell this for $92 million, we're running the same risk of having the same issue right in the middle of our neighborhood, and for you, Commissioner Sarnoff, there's another part of the Roads that is in your district, which happens to be right on South Miami Avenue. Ms. Dougherty said before that, gee, nobody has said anything about traffic. Well, I'm saying about traffic, OK, because we're going to be impacted. Right now that section of the Roads on South Miami Avenue is impossible to cross over to South Miami Avenue and go to downtown. People here will probably not take that, probably go down to Coral Way, and go, again, north on Coral Way. These studies are based on statistics because the people are not there. It's just a projection and numbers, so in closing, I'm going to close with a quote from Spence -Jones appointee to the City ofMiami Page 186 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Planning Advisory Board on an issue of the Downtown Development Authority, which the argument was based on statistics, and he ruled against them, and he ruled against them because he said, "Gentlemen, I'm going to quote," and he said, "Mark Twain, who said, 'A lie is a lie is a statistic.'" Thank you, and I hope you'll reject this upzoning. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Goggins: Thank you, Commissioners. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Goggins: That concludes the opposition's presentation. Thank you for your attention. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Ms. Dougherty: Just a few words in rebuttal, Commissioner -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. You're recognized. Ms. Dougherty: OK. First of all, I'd like Bernardo Fort -Brescia to come forward because they were talking about facts, and they completely misrepresented his exhibit when they showed that exhibit of the -- of his buildings. Mr. Fort -Brescia: During the presentation by the opponent counsel, he showed an image several times, more than once, from different angles of this project, and we took a lot of care in the design to compose the facade at different parts at a smaller scale. They were shown as a single mass, but most importantly -- and I really think it is unfair to represent to the public things that are not accurate -- we carefully stepped down the buildings from a taller building on the waterfront, reducing in height significantly; five stories each time, all the way down to the neighborhood, and the exhibit that was shown by the gentleman actually did exactly the opposite and made it appear that we were doing exactly the mirror image reverse, and actually rising from a low building on the waterfront to a high building toward South Bayshore Drive, and I don't think it's correct to create that -- those kind of impressions to the public, to yourselves, and to the people who even oppose here, who may have that incorrect impression that we actually are doing the reverse of what the -- our sensitive design has done for the neighborhood, and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- I want to make that clarification, please. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we need -- for the sake of clarity, we need to keep the project -- the project is not even in front of us, so let's not even see pictures of projects or what is going to be out there. I mean -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, sure, but the opponent has shown images of the project, architecture included. Clearly, he starts with an image, has an image in the middle of the way, an image at the end, so I have to rebut. When there is a presentation of my architecture by a third party, I think I need -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- to respond to it. City ofMiami Page 187 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- at least -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think we all know that's irrelevant. Let's just stick to the facts. Mr. Lukacs: Just a point of -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. One of the -- Mr. Lukacs: -- clarification. Ms. Dougherty: -- things that I need to -- Mr. Lukacs: Excuse me, Lucia. Just a point of clarification, and this is not in surrebuttal, but just for clarification. One of the exhibits offered by the applicant actually attempted to portray the scale of this project. That issue was addressed specifically by Mr. Luft, as well as by Mr. Fort -Brescia, and the actual exhibit, which is sitting in front of the podium in front ofMs. Dougherty right there, is a cropped version of what this project purports to be, which is a perspective that was selected byArquitectonica to send a specific message. It does not, in any way, envelope or encompass the relevant surrounding neighborhoods by which one could reasonably conclude that the project is clearly out of scale. Thank you very much. Applause. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, I'm -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- I'd like to say that what I am talking about is not subjective; it's factual and objective. The actual lower building is to the west, and that -- it was represented exactly in reverse in the exhibits shown by the opponent, and it actually -- represented incorrectly, and I just wanted to point that out. This is a factual thing. I'm not talking here judgment calls. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. Ms. Dougherty: One of the things that -- and this is in rebuttal -- was raised by the other side is a pre -application design review comment, and what I want you to know is that this is the first thing that happens in a litany of nine months of various hearings and meetings that we have to go through through a Major Use Special Permit, and it's just factually incorrect. I mean, it says that the lowest abutting neighborhood is R-1. Well, they were wrong, and that's what the planning analysis shows later on, and that's a -- that's what your Planning Department just testified to. The lowest abutting zoning classification is R-3. What we're proposing, it is a density of less than R-3; not R-3, less than R-3, and this is what they're saying. They are saying that the R-4 combined results in a project density that is inappropriate with the existing conditions of the area. Not true. The density is actually less than the most -- the closest abutting zoning classification, which I'm just going to point out to you on this exhibit. What you see in orange is the R-3 district. This is R-3. This allows 65 units per acre. What we're proposing is something less than -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Can we get a mike? Ms. Dougherty: -- 65. This is the R-3 district. This is the property that we're proposing to zone to R-4. This allows 65 units per acre or 104 units. We aren't proposing 104 units. We're proposing less density than this was proposed -- than the R-4, or the R-3, for that matter, so the City ofMiami Page 188 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 original comments were just a mistake, and as we go through the process, they revised their comments, and they revised their conditions, and they revised their recommendations because we revise our plans according to what they're proposing, so they didn't show you what the plans were originally. We've modified these based on what the Planning staff has asked us to do along the way of the procedure in the MUSP, and we have a Urban Development Review Board. They propose a staff -- we have a board of architects in the City ofMiami called the Urban Development Review Board. They recommended approval of this project. We also went to the Shoreline Review Committee of Dade County. They recommended unanimous review -- approval of this project, so to take a staff -- one staff recommendation is the very beginning of the whole process, and to kind of construe that that ought to be it for the end, not knowing that we've actually changed our plans any number of ways and times to meet staff objections throughout the process. I want to just point out to you there has been no expert testimony here today. We've had lawyers' arguments, and that does not constitute competent substantial evidence. With that, I'd like to close. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We're going to start taking input from -- Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: Are you done? Ms. Dougherty: No. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, you're not? OK Mr. Luft: OK The opposition's arguments are based on one significant fallacy, totally flawed. Commissioner Sarnoff, let me read this to you. It says -- I'm reading from the G/I governmental disfrict, as amended. It says that any use within the comprehensive development plan designation as set forth below is permitted. However, for accessory, nongovernmental or noninstitutional uses only, such uses may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting disfrict. What they're missing entirely in this whole debate, that statement says, if nothing else occurs, if G/I remains and there is no rezoning, if there is no master plan change, then all you can do in the G/I district, as of right, is whatever is permitted in the lowest intensity abutting disfrict, if nothing else changes. Why are we here today? Because staff said, if you want to do the kind ofR-4 development that is referred to in our Comprehensive Plan as appropriate in connection with G/I and you want to eliminate that Mercy Hospital parking lot as a G/I use, then you have to change the zoning, and to change the zoning, you have to change the comp plan. That's all. There's nothing here that says you can't change the zoning and you can't change the comp plan. It only says, if you don't make those changes, then you are limited to the lowest abutting residential district, period. We are making the changes. That's why we're here. Your argument is -- will -- only holds if we're in here to get an as -of -right permit for a development without any changes. That's when the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to the disfrict applies. That's what happened on the Grovenor. There was no change of zoning. There was no change of master plan. They just came in and built a high-rise. The Department and the City made the change and said, no, that's not going to happen anymore. You can't just come in here and say, oh, well, we're going to build a high-rise on G/I. Uh-uh. If it's not governmental and it's not institutional, i.e., residential high -density, then the proper procedure is, A, change your comp plan, and B, change your zoning. There's nothing illegal about this. This is the process we have to follow, and you'll have to follow in any district. Their interpretation -- they're frying to say, hey, if you have a G/I district, you can't do anything but whatever the lowest residential use is, even if you change the zoning. That's ridiculous. That would be a complete usurpation of the right to appeal for a comp plan change and a land use change, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft. City ofMiami Page 189 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Thus, your argument that you have to change the entire GI in order -- Mr. Luft: If the -- Commissioner Sarnoff Let me just say it. You could tell me if I'm wrong. I don't mind being wrong. I'm probably wrong more -- Mr. Luft: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff -- than I'm right. Thus, your argument that you have to change the entire GI fract of land in order to revert back to the lowest adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Luft: If the GI goes away, which is what I said -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Mr. Luft: -- if it goes away, then you have to change the plan, or the zoning, or all you can do is the R-1. Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Your -- Mr. Luft: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff -- suggestion, then, is that you have got to get rid of the entire GI, and then, only then, do you revert back to -- Mr. Luft: I'm say -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- the lowest -- Mr. Luft: -- that's what they're saying. Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, I thought that's what you're saying, Mr. Luft. Mr. Luft: No. I'm saying that the -- as long as the G/I is there and you make no other changes, all you can do is single-family or R-3. In this case, the abutting -- nearest abutting district -- and your Department has already had a ruling on file that the nearest abutting district to this property is R-3, OK. So that would be -- without a change, that would be the limitation. What I'm saying is, only if you change the G/I can you go to something else, OK. You can't just leave it there. You got to change it, so their entire argument falls apart because they're arguing a status quo, and we're here seeking a change. Their argument has no application to this at all. Moreover -- and spot zoning, the legal case law is that if you have a less intensive use -- and your Department has said this is a downzoning. It is a more restrictive use district. It cannot be a spot zone. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does that conclude your rebuttal? Mr. Luft: One last point. Vizcaya has said that they will be irreparably damaged by a tall structure that they could see. I simply want to know if, in their opinion, they can see any of the high-rises on Brickell because the distance from the Vizcaya property, the gardens on the north side to the Cosmopolitan or the 50-story -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Jack, that -- City ofMiami Page 190 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Luft: -- Bristol -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that's irrelevant. Mr. Luft: Well, I'm -- all I'm saying is they've alleged that this will incomparably damage their property, and what I'm saying is, look at the map. The distances are the same. They don't mention the other properties, of course, because they haven't irreparably compromised them. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you. Mr. Luft: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There is -- Applause. Commissioner Sarnoff Lucia, could you come up for one minute? Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Coun -- Commissioner Sarnoff Lucia. I have a question for Lucia. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, the Commissioner has a question, but there is no rebuttal to a rebuttal. Counsel, you -- Commissioner Sarnoff Understood. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- know that better than I do -- Commissioner Sarnoff I just want to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and then -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- ask her a question. When you -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You could go ahead with the question, but afterwards, please start lining up, all those that are going to speak in favor or against because I think it's important now we listen to the people. Commissioner Sarnoff Lucia. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, you're recognized. Commissioner Sarnoff When you were telling us -- because I want to be able to exclude this in my thought process -- all these groups, like architectural groups, had approved of this, you were discussing the actual buildings themselves? Ms. Dougherty: That's right. Commissioner Sarnoff Are you equally aware that the Planning Department has disapproved these? Ms. Dougherty: What do you mean? City ofMiami Page 191 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, I have a memorandum here from -- the Planning Department has recommended -- although approval of the project, feels that the project is not designed -- or is designed with too much height. Are you aware of that? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go ahead and start -- listen, I'm going to allow -- there's a lot of speakers. I'm sure we all want to get home and be with our families, our pets, our loved ones, so two minutes, please. Two minutes is a lot of time to get your message across. OK, we'll start with you, sir. Raul Ramirez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All we need is your name and address and two minutes. Mr. Ramirez: Right. My name is Dr. Raul Ramirez, and I'm a neighbor of the north Grove, Grove Isle, B1409, and I'm going to be talking for myself and for Myron (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He's also a Grove Isle citizen who's here, and he filled in the -- Commissioner Sarnoff All right. Mr. Ramirez: -- application. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But you only get two minutes. Mr. Ramirez: I get Myron. I can get him here, and he can continue reading, but in any case -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, we'll give you four minutes. Mr. Ramirez: -- you know, I worked as a physician -based radiologist at Mercy Hospital for 27 years. I'm sorry I didn't bring my lab coat, like some of these people, which I never met them there, so they have not been there long enough, but in any case, I did work at Mercy for 27 years, and I know what's going on. This text amendment to the G/I ordinance of 2004, some of our sitting Commissioners were present at that time when it was passed, and the intent of the resolution was very clearly [sic] and then Commissioner Johnny Winton spoke clearly about it, and Lourdes Slazyk, who was there, also talk about the intent of the resolution. I would like to show you an excerpt from that meeting of September 27, 2004. By the way, I brought a VHS (Vertical Helical Scan) and they spoil it over there, so I have to show you the -- An audiovisual presentation was made. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Before we do that, let's go ahead and put a face behind the voice. Commissioner -- former Commissioner Winton's here, so Commissioner Winton -- Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. How much time does he have? That's it -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 192 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in conclusion. Mr. Ramirez: In conclusion, you -- I have a slight -- you know, these people have talked for an hour and a half, and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Come on. Mr. Ramirez: -- I have -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Listen -- Chairman Gonzalez: No, no, no, no. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- my friend -- Mr. Ramirez: -- two other people -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, listen -- Mr. Ramirez: -- over are here that are giving me their time. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I'm not the Chair; I'm the Vice Chair. He's the Chair. Mr. Ramirez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: No. We need to establish a time -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- limit. We have established, from the beginning of the meeting -- excuse me -- Mr. Ramirez: He's giving me -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- from -- Mr. Ramirez: -- his time. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Unless somebody wants to waive their time and give you the time? Unidentified Speaker: I'll give my time. Mr. Ramirez: Yeah, here it is. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, yeah, because, listen -- there's going to be -- but you -- it's going to be you? Mr. Ramirez: Here it is. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but you're giving up your time? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, so I'm going to keep an eye on you. City ofMiami Page 193 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so you have two -- Mr. Ramirez: Let me -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- additional minutes. Two minutes. Ms. Burns: Could we get the names for the record, too, who's giving up their times? Mr. Ramirez: My name is Raul Ramirez -- Chairman Gonzalez: Remember -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no. Sir, what --? Manuel Gonzalez: My name is Manuel Gonzalez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Manuel Gonzalez. Mr. Gonzalez: I reside at 1649 South Bayshore Drive. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Remember that the reason that we are allowing two minutes each is so the majority of the people have the opportunity to express themself [sic]. At 10 p.m. we're going to be adjourning the meeting, so you know, we have to manage the time, and we have to manage the amount of people that we have here that want to speak on the item. You have an additional two minutes. Unidentified Speaker: Go ahead. Mr. Ramirez: This is the City Commission building where we are now. Chairman Gonzalez: I hope so. Mr. Ramirez: As you can see, this is along the waterfront from the City Commission, from the parking space of Commissioner Sanchez, all the way across to Grove Isle on the right-hand side and Mercy campus on the back, and to the left, you can see Brickell corridor. Mercy -- Grove Isle has 18-story building, the highest in the north Grove at this time. We're talking about 32, 37, and 41 stories high. It's going to be twice as big as that. OK, these are the buildings next to where they plan to do the project. Right there, where that little wood fence is, to the right, that's where the project starts and goes to the right. This is a view from Grove Isle, across to Mercy, and that's the area where they're going to build the three towers, 32, 37, and 41 stories high. This is going out of Grove Isle, so you can have a comparison. You're talking about an island that has 20 acres and has 510 units versus 6.7 acres and 300 units, and it has a private bridge, and it's a private island. This is a McMansion at the entrance of Halissee, which is the -- what they're talking about. I took this a couple of weeks ago, this photograph, but this still here, and the reason I'm showing you the McMansion is so I can show you later on the entrance to Halissee from Natoma Manors. This is the little wood fence I was talking about and the view from the little wood fence to Grove Isle, which is 18 stories high. This is Halissee, and this is what they talk -- this is -- big thing they're going to build and everything else, and that's Natoma Manor [sic] on the right-hand side, where we have so many people representing them, and this is the way they're keeping it. Even now the people are fighting and saying that, you know, this is really pitiful the way they have kept the campus. They still haven't even clean it up. You can see they say that this is a private road, but you can see a bus coming in -- municipal bus route that go through Halissee and takes in all the little old people over there in Natoma Manor [sic]; they City ofMiami Page 194 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 coming in that bus. This is coming from Natoma Manor [sic] and Bay Heights into Mercy into that traffic light. You can see that the street has been partially blocked from before in agreement that Bay Heights did with Mercy so they can redirect traffic and they cannot go into the neighborhood. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Wait a minute. You yield -- Mr. Ramirez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- your two minutes -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Somebody wants to give you credit -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to the gentleman. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for two more minutes? Chairman Gonzalez: Anyone else wants to yield their time? Mr. Ramirez: I justgave you -- Chairman Gonzalez: You also want to yield your time. Mr. Ramirez: She'll give me -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, folks -- Mr. Ramirez: -- her -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- listen. These are -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- people that are going to speak anyway. They could do that. Mr. Ramirez: She's going to speak. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: They may not be here to speak, though. Mr. Ramirez: She won't speak. Commissioner Spence -Jones: They might just be here to observe. Mr. Ramirez: She won't speak. Let me show you. This is the McMansion I was talking about, and this is going into that road. You can see the chronic flooding problem in front of Natoma Manor [sic]. They have not fix it. That's my last slide. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: Is that the conclusion of your presentation? City ofMiami Page 195 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Ramirez: Mine, not hers. Chairman Gonzalez: That's your presentation. All right. Your name and address for the record. You have two minutes. Nathan Kurland: Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue, Coconut Grove, resident and nonpaid speaker against the merciless project. Friedrich Nietzsche said, the most common form of stupidity is forgetting what one is frying to do, and the reason I mention that to you is that this morning my lovely lady, Cecilia, said to me, Nathan, you're working so hard on these issues of quality to life that you're actually damaging our quality to life. The only G/I I ever heard of was an upper GI (gastrointestinal), prior to coming to Coconut Grove. To Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Regalado, I ask you to fulfill the promise that you made by strengthening the G/I ordinance after allowing the steroid, built up Grovenor House to be plunked down on Bayshore Drive, please. To Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones, prior to Commissioner Sarnoff being elected, I used to sit in this audience and wish that you were my Commissioner because, to the degree of focus that you represent your constituents, it's almost jealous. Just even today, ordinance 6, 7, and 8, not only does this project get built in your district, but you get special pricing, set aside housing, a school for the residents. It's quite impressive. I ask that you show this kind of consideration to the residents of Coconut Grove, who, quite honestly, myself included, are feeling a bit closed in. To the west we have the Metrorail project. Last night the hundred of us who attended that project were referred to as a burden on the RTDIC (Rapid Transit Development Impact Committee) Committee. We had to sit there while the RTDIC Committee approved a project where we gave the 200 space -- parking spaces that are at the frain station to the developer, who is then going to sell them back to the City ofMiami. I don't understand, but I'm the burden. We also dealt, for the last two years, and continue to deal with the industrial warehouse a couple of blocks from this building. This fight will go on and on, just like this one here. I'm in awe of some of the eloquence displayed this evening by the attorneys and by the people against this. These are my neighbors. I thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Julio Garcia: Yes, sir. My name is Dr. Julio Garcia. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, OK Let me ask you a favor, you know. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Stop clapping. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me ask you a favor. Stop clapping because every time -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Waste time. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you start clapping, you take 30 seconds, 45 seconds, so you're taking time from the people that want to speak, so you know -- Mr. Garcia: Mr. Chairman, member of the Commission, my name is Dr. Julio Garcia -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Garcia: -- and I am active atMercy Hospital over Dr. Ramirez that was only 27; I am 33 years atMercy Hospital. I have been seeing the growth of our community. I am seeing -- be in City ofMiami Page 196 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 the emergency room with a patient waiting for several hours because we don't have space to take care of the patient. We need the money, not for the sister, not for the priest, not for the Catholic church. We need the money for you people that live in this community in the City ofMiami because if you don't remember, St. John Bosco Clinic is in the Little Havana. We provide service in the emergency room to all patient that go there. Not only that, we admit free of charge all the patient from the Little Havana on the John Bosco Clinic. We provide free service in our community for everyone, but realize one thing. In order to keep the hospital at the level that you need to keep, you need to get new equipment, new technology. In the Radiology Department that Dr. Ramirez was there many years back, he knows that we need to get the state-of-the-art in order that our patient and our people in the community are treated correctly. Don't giving [sic} the excuse of if it's 100 unit or 200 unit. Thinking first what mean the $92 million for us, not for me. I don't have any share. I don't get any money from that, but I am talking because I still practice everyday. I see all the patient of the League Against Cancer since day one. I have been the founder in that institution, and we are proud ofMercy Hospital. Thank you, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: And let me add to that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, clapping. Chairman Gonzalez: -- that you practice Liga Against Cancer free -- Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and you do surgery free -- Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and you do all your services free. Mr. Garcia: All my service are free to the community -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me add to that. Mr. Garcia: -- and also, I have one clinic in Key Biscayne for the people that doesn't have insurance, and it's called the Buen Pastor Clinic, and we offer free service, and they get service at Mercy when they need it, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: I know that. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: No clapping, please. No clapping. Allan Reiss: Good evening. My name is Allan Reiss. I live at 236 Shore Drive East, Bay Heights. I'm the crust. My two -year -old son is the crust; my four -year -old daughter. I want to know if this lawyer is going to put trees so we don't have to look at this eyesore. I want to know what's going to happen with the traffic. An assisted living facility isn't going to have rush hour traffic. Six hundred, three hundred units is going to have people trying to commute, frying to get in and out. It's going to destroy the neighborhood. Speaking of the neighborhood, this lawyer represented twice that Bay Heights supports this. We do not. I live there. I have fried -- and I have the letters -- over and over again to see this secret agreement that supposedly is going to City ofMiami Page 197 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 shut off the neighborhood, which would increase my property value. I have been refused over and over again. I have not been allowed to see it. We've been accused of being a Third World country. How is it that this developer is -- allegedly has a secret agreement with Bay Heights, and I, a resident, have been refused access? I've written over and over again to Mr. Gibbs, Tucker Gibbs. I have the e-mails. I have the fax receipts. I have the letters. They'll let me see a redacted version of the agreement. What kind of nonsense is that? How can this developer come in here with secret agreements that -- and tell us Bay Heights supports it, but the residents of Bay Heights aren't allowed to see it? You should be aware that Bay Heights is an informal association. There is no formal association. There is no covenants running with the land. These people have no basis to speak for me or for my family or for my neighbors, who all are against this project. I request that you all deny this. This should be residential use only. They can -- the hospital is -- if it's -- if they need to sell land, then they could find other ways. They can build their assisting living facility. They can be financially responsible. They don't have to sell to a developer. These gentlemen who purport to speak on behalf of Bay Heights legally have no authority. The documents they've given you, they have no authority. I've warned them over and over again that they should not represent to the Commission that they have authority to speak for me. There is no association formally. It's informal only in the public records -- Chairman Gonzalez: Your time is up, sir. Mr. Reiss: -- and I respect the doctors and all that they do for our community. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Murray Marcus: My name is Murray Marcus, and I am the president of Bay Heights. I've been the president for 13 years. I've lived in Bay Heights since 1959. This man's a liar, an out-and-out liar. I am -- to say -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Marcus: -- that he has asked to see the agreement -- he has never been refused to see the agreement. We made a confidential statement with The Related Group and Mercy Hospital that we could show -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Marcus: -- the agreement, but we could not show the amount of money that was involved. This man -- Commissioner Sarnoff Hey, hey. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff That's enough. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, listen. Let us learn to disagree, but let us respect one another. Unidentified Speaker: He started it. Mr. Marcus: This -- City ofMiami Page 198 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah -- Mr. Marcus: -- gentleman that spoke -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but -- Mr. Marcus: -- before -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I understand. It's not -- we're not going to point fingers at each other. Let's not allow this. Sir, please, let's -- Mr. Marcus: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you have your two minutes. Mr. Marcus: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let's not insult anybody -- Mr. Marcus: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and let's not point fingers at anybody. Mr. Marcus: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: Time is running. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK? Mr. Marcus: Thank you. I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, I apologize for that. Mr. Marcus: I apologize to the gentleman. I will start with a story, and I have a couple of people that will allow me their two minutes. In 19 -- rather, in 2004I saw an article in the Miami Herald, and it said that Mercy Hospital sold land for $100 million. I went and I spoke to John Matuska at our picnic, and I asked him what was he going to do with the land. He was evasive. He never said anything, and then the rumors started that they were going to build an eight -story medical building, they were going to build 1,200 condominiums, and I didn't know what to do, so I went to an organization in Coconut Grove called Grove First. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me be fair. Is any -- who's going to be giving you another two minutes? Tucker Gibbs: I will. Chairman Gonzalez: You will? Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Gibbs: Tucker Gibbs. Mr. Marcus: I went to Grove First and Marc Sarnoff, who is now your Commissioner, was the City ofMiami Page 199 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 president of Grove First. I told them what our problem was. I went to a number of meetings. Unfortunately, Grove First was involved with office -- with the office -- homeown -- Home Depot, and they couldn't help me, butt was recommended to Tucker Gibbs. At that time I called everybody who had a homeowner's president -- you get a list from the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office -- and I left messages. I spoke to this gentleman, Elvis, and Morningside, and I told them the problem that they were going to build an eight -story building, they were going to build 1,200 condominiums, and then I got a Class II that they were building -- they were going to build an emergency room. I hired Tucker Gibbs, and we decided we would start to see if we could get them to come to the table. We came in front of the Zoning Board, and we said let emergency room go through, but we wanted to get some sort of a semblance of what was going to happen, and then we got a call to sit down with The Related Group, and I went with Yery Marrero, from Natoma Manors, in Tucker Gibbs's office, and we sat down and we spoke to the principals of The Related Group, and they said they wanted 1,200 condominiums. Mercy Hospital wanted the eight -story building, and we walked out of the meeting. We walked out of about four subsequent meetings, and at that particular point in time we had a problem because our biggest problem is traffic. Chairman Gonzalez: Your biggest problem is that the time is up. Mr. Marcus: Well -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's your biggest problem. Mr. Marcus: Here's another gentleman who'll give me two minutes. Mr. Reiss: Gentlemen, I'd just like to introduce the letters into the record -- make copies because the -- Chairman Gonzalez: You may give it to -- Mr. Reiss: -- man called me a liar. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the City Clerk. Mr. Reiss: OK, thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You have an additional two minutes -- Mr. Marcus: OK. At that particular time -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and you know, let me help you. Mr. Marcus: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: What you need to do is to talk in reference to this application and why you support the application because, actually, you know, you're going through a process that is not - Mr. Marcus: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- helping you any in -- Mr. Marcus: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- supporting the project. City ofMiami Page 200 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Marcus: The reason that Bay Heights and Natoma Manors made a deal is because, number one, we were very, very concerned about traffic, and I can tell you right now, an eight -story medical building with four stories of parking garages is not in our best interest. Three hundred condominiums, starting at $5 million and going to $15 million is in our best interest. We have -- we know that these condominiums will be used possibly six to eight months out of the year if at much -- if Brickell is any sort of a guide, that we will not have the type of traffic. I have asked the City ofMiami for help with Bayshore coming into Samana. We average between 300 to 350 cars every night, between the hours of 4 and 7. In the morning, between the hours of 7 and 9, we average 300 cars. That's 600 cars. Children can't play on our streets. I hear these people from Grove Isle worrying about the view. Well, I'll tell you a little something. If a child gets killed, that's much, much worse than having the view blocked. I thank you very much. I hope you support this amendment. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Burns: Mr. Chair, we need the name of the individual who gave up his time to speak. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Tucker Gibbs -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Tucker Gibbs and somebody else. Ms. Burns: There's a second person. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and there was a gentleman standing back there, the gentleman with the - - yes, sir. What's your name, please? Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and he gave the two minutes, not me. Chairman Gonzalez: You got it? Ms. Burns: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Sir, tell me your name. You, with the moustache. Aurelio Linero: L I-N-E-R-O, last name; first name's Al. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Linero: 65 Shore Drive West. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Linero. Linero. Unidentified Speaker: Lineros [sic]. Chairman Gonzalez: Lineros [sic]. Helene Diaz: Lineros [sic]. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. City ofMiami Page 201 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Linero: Linero. Unidentified Speaker: Linero. Unidentified Speaker: No "s." Unidentified Speaker: No "s." Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Good evening. Ms. Diaz: Distinguished City Commissioners and dear neighbors, my name is Helene Diaz, and I've been a resident of the north Grove since early 1980's. Notwithstanding the letter of the law in which this project is not allowed under current zoning, we should reiterate that their project has already been rejected by our City Zoning and Planning boards, which, after extensive discussion, gave the project unfavorable recommendations. Our neighborhood is predominantly R-1 and R-3, and many properties abutting the proposed project are R-1 in the Glencoe Subdivision. Mercy has operated as a nonprofit institution for more than 55 years without paying taxes on land donated by the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) family for medical campuses and other G/I uses. Now they want to make a windfall real estate profit of more than 100 million by selectively selling 6.73 acres of their campus to The Related Group in land investments so they can build three massive towers of 32, 37, and 41 stories. Their stated reason for the sale of the land is that they need money for the capital investment of the facilities. However, they neglect to tell you that Mercy has been one of the most profitable hospitals in South Florida for many years. Just this past July 2006, Mercy -- Miami Herald published an article reporting that Mercy Hospital posted more than 229 million in net profits in 2004, so where have all the profits gone? Intimidating threats by Mercy Hospital and developers regarding maximum density permitted by G/I zoning are not well received by most of the neighbors, which feel that this project is totally out of context and do not wish another Brickell corridor. Furthermore, I own property in Grove Isle, but this is just very recent. Before, for the past two years, I owned property at the Fairview Subdivision, which is much more near than Natoma Manors people, and we were never ever notified, and we were never approached of this is happening. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Yery Marrero: Commissioners, good evening. Yery Marrero. I'm actually -- board of the directors for Natoma Manors. I'm also president of the board of directors for Natoma Manors. I've been in that position for two years. I'll tell you the genesis of why we support the project and we support the project after we did our homework. We've been doing our homework for two years. When the rest of the Grove was interested in dealing with the Home Depot situation, I actually went to One Grove Alliance and some of my members from my community, and Grove -- One Grove Alliance put us in the bottom of the totem pole, so we decided we needed to take things under our own hand and find out how this project will affect us. Well, it'll affect us -- we did a fraffic study, and the fraffic study obviously showed that any institutional building or any institution structure, even if it's four -- only four stories or five stories, would generate more traffic in the Grove and in that area and for Natoma Manors and Bay Heights. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Who did your fraffic study? Ms. Marrero: We had -- I forget his -- Mark Alvarez did the fraffic study, and he -- I believe he does fraffic studies for -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Did you provide a -- Ms. Marrero: -- you know -- City ofMiami Page 202 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to the Clerk? Ms. Marrero: I could -- I will. OK, we did that traffic study, and obviously, that fraffic study indicated that a 300 condo unit building in that area would be less dense, and there would be less fraffic than a hospital or a old age facility in that area, and for us, for Natoma Manors, we have traffic coming up Tigertail. We have fraffic coming up Micanopy going all the way into Mercy Hospital. Our neighborhood is the most affected, our neighborhood. It's not about how pretty the buildings are. It's not about -- it's about traffic for us. It's about -- it's not about -- how can I say --? I know Grove Isle is here, and it's about -- they mentioned their quality of life. Well, their quality of life, I think, is not affected as much as our quality of life at Natoma Manors when the fraffic is running as I'm running up those streets to Mercy Hospital. We have been living with the fraffic of an institution ofMercy Hospital. With the agreement, OK, that we have entered -- and it's been a two-year long going process -- Chairman Gonzalez: Your time is up. Ms. Marrero: Can some --? Beth Kipnis: I'll give her my two minutes. Ms. Marrero: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What is your name? Ms. Kipnis: Beth Kipnis. Ms. Burns: What was that again? We couldn't hear over here. Ms. Kipnis: Who am I talking to? Unidentified Speaker: The Clerk. Ms. Kipnis: Beth Kipnis. Ms. Burns: Thank you. Ms. Marrero: Thank you, Beth. That ongoing process that we did after we did the traffic study and looked at what the condo project would be like to our neighborhood, it's the least intrusive to the Grove, and it's not only Natoma Manors. It's to the rest of the Grove, and that is something I think that a lot of people or a lot of groups in the community have not taken into account. They're up here, Commissioners, talking about, you know, the zoning and talking about, well, this building's going to be too high, but have they ever thought about really doing a traffic study in their own neighborhoods like we did? Well, guess what? A 300-unit condo building is not going to bring that much traffic to the Grove as much as any other institutional building that that is zoned for now, and that is our concern, and actually, as a neighborhood, with Bay Heights, the deal that we did, the genesis of that deal was traffic, period. If anything else came out of that deal -- I know Murray mentioned money -- it's to secure security and to ease the fraffic in our neighborhood because, unlike Grove Isle, which, by the way, would not be here if the zoning was not changed because they're not a single-family home -- Deborah Scarpa Castro: That's true. City ofMiami Page 203 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Marrero: -- OK, unlike them, we are affected, and we're asking the members of the City Commission to really look just beyond the height of these buildings. We want you to look at the density and how it really, really affects us because we are the most affected. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Ms. Scarpa Casfro: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. Can you hear me? Am I -- should I go up? Thank you. I'm here to talk about a subject -- Chairman Gonzalez: We need your name and address for the record. Ms. Scarpa Casfro: Oh. My name is Deborah Scarpa Castro. I'm a resident and business owner in Coconut Grove. My home address is 3683 Hibiscus. My business address is 2398 South Dixie Highway 33133. I'm here to talk about a subject I have not heard yet this evening, and that is about beauty and the fact -- at the inflexibility of our community to bring Coconut Grove into the 21 st century, and the fact that Coconut Grove is not keeping up with the rest of Miami. I have a business. It is an international business. Many times I have the pleasure of hosting my clients in my offices; yet, of the 18 clients in 20 years of doing business in this area, none of them have purchased in Coconut Grove. Miami is seen as Miami Beach. We have a responsibility, and you, as our governing body, have a responsibility to look at that waterway, which is unreachable for many of the residents -- residences here. My own daughter, I think I could count on one hand the times I have walked by that waterway. I deserve accessibility. I think that, as someone who travels around the world, other people, other cities, like Portofino, Monte Carlo, they can move their architecture and their design. I think the caliber of design that is being initiated here is a very high level, and I am for the project. I think it would be an asset, and we do need to keep up with the rest ofMiami. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Leonard Abess: My name is Leonard Abess. I live at 100 Southeast 32nd Road on the north side of Vizcaya. I am a third generation Miamian, and my family's been here since 1917, and I'm chairman of City National Bank, which has been headquartered in Miami for 60 years. I also was chairman ofMt. Sinai for four years. I was born at Victoria Hospital, which does not exist. Hospitals go away. Mt. Sinai is a waterfront hospital. I think Mercy is relevant. Anyone here who really does live in the neighborhood will go there when they call 911. We need a strong hospital in our community, and they need the money, and they need it now. I remember the fight over Grove Isle. The original developer was bankrupted by the community. It was the first high-rise. It took years. It was going to ruin the Grove forever, change everything, and so it is a little ironic that the ones who started it all want to stop it now, but there's nothing about Coconut Grove, or very little in the town I grew up, there's very little about Miami or Miami -Dade, and yet, today is the happiest day I've ever lived here. I love living here. My children live here, and it's wonderful. I think we all know that, one way or another, this land will be developed, and I personally think this is the most exciting project that could go there. I think it's a wonderful project, and I urge you to let them get going. I'm excited about the bay walk and everything that's going on. I walk through there now. It's not very nice right now, and I urge you to approve this. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. David Ralph: Hello. My name is David Ralph, and I live at 2516 Swanson Avenue, and I'm also the president of the Coconut Grove Park Homeowners Association, which consists of about 600 homes, and my neighborhood is 2, 500 feet away from this proposed upzoning, and I'd like to just refocus the issue on this G/I ordinance and this concept of upzoning and give you a brief history. City ofMiami Page 204 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 My neighborhood association, along with the civic club and a few other organizations in the Grove worked to keep the Grovenor out -- off of Bayshore. That was a government/institutional institutional zoned land that the developer, in the end, after our fight, was able to upzone from G/I to what it is today. We worked with the City to craft the G/I ordinance so that this development abuse could never happen again, so it's kind of frustrating to be up here going through the same issue, and as Commissioner Sanchez stated, this has citywide implications because, if it happens here, it can happen anywhere in the City, and we don't even know where these G/I zones are peppered. They're between homes. They're anywhere, so we are opening the door to a citywide problem, and you know, I'd also like to ask my fellow Grove neighbors who are supporting this -- and we love you. You're in the Grove with us, but we want -- I would ask that you look past your property lines and past your neighborhood area and think about what this precedent would do to our city, so I'm asking the Commission to deny the upzoning, and I would further ask that we also harden the GI zoning ordinance so that we don't have to go through this again. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Adrienne Arsht: My name is Adrienne Arsht, and I live at 3031 Brickell Avenue. I've lived here for ten years. I wouldn't leave Miami, except maybe with a backhoe or in a box. I support what the developer is proposing. I have known Jorge Perez since I came here. He cares about his community. He has a master's in urban planning. He is a proponent of the new urbanism, as put forth by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. He knows what's important in a neighborhood. He would not seek to harm it. My neighborhood has many bits of history. Down the street is the devil's punchbowl. When Jorge Perez did a building -- or is doing a building on Brickell, he is protecting the Tequesta Circle. The swimming pool at my house was built in 1920, and with some and -- considerable difficulty, I was able to preserve it. When I built my house, I took into consideration the architecture and style and history of Vizcaya. When Jorge Perez built One Miami, he built a bay walk there. As for accessibility to the water -- and it was questioned and -- or remarked how important it is -- what he has done at One Miami is bring the water and that accessibility to many, many people. In closing, I urge you to consider that the developer is not a horrible name. The developer is not a concept. The developer is Jorge Perez, who has a history of caring about our community and understanding the importance of neighborhoods. I urge you to support the Grove Bay request. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. Andy Parrish: Andy Parrish, 1617 Tigertail Avenue, in Natoma Manors. I just first want to say I'm so glad to see all my neighbors, pro and con, on this issue. It's great to have all the Grove come out like this. Fantastic. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm even going to clap to that. Applause. Mr. Parrish: All right, so it's Groundhog Day in Miami. Once again, you face a packed hall asking you to vote on a zoning matter that has citizens angry at you because they can read with their own eyes and brains; it's somehow being translated into something entirely different. You have heard testimony today from citizens who volunteered many long hours to help craft the Grovenor ordinance that you passed. That ordinance was written in plain English and says that uses other than government and institutional uses are "allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district." This ordinance made any other upzonings of any G/I property impossible. They can still use their G/I use, but they can't upzone to a different one, and yet, here we are again with a developer and his attorneys saying that all the Grovenor ordinance requires is for a G/I property to be temporarily zoned the same as the least intensive abutting property. After that, it can be upzoned if three of you five Commissioners agree to allow it. This is a very dangerous thing for you to consider doing. Over the years, you City ofMiami Page 205 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 and everyone in this room have seen the Miami Zoning Ordinance interpreted in ways that defy common sense. Usually, it has been the developers and their lawyers who have prevailed here. The members of the public are then told that they can appeal through the court system, and every lawyer here will tell you that the courts are reluctant to overturn local zoning decisions and you know why. Because judges generally say that they don't want to be super zoning codes for every single one of the many municipalities in Dade County. Instead, they say, if you don't like the zoning decisions of your Commissioners, then you have to vote them out. Now this is where the danger lies. If you allow the City's laws to be twisted and turned in defiance of common sense and in contempt for the average citizen's ability to read and understand the law, then you destroy the respect for that law. Proof of that sits right here before you today, whether they're here for or against this ordinance, this upzoning of the Mercy project. If you ask them whether they have respect for the City ofMiamirs Zoning Ordinance, the resounding answer, no matter who you ask, will be no. Chairman Gonzalez: Your time is up. Mr. Parrish: It is a -- I'm just about finished, Commissioner. Chairman Gonzalez: I need you to conclude. Mr. Parrish: -- very slippery slope once you start on it. Respect for the law is one of the foundation pillars that supports our country. The law is for everyone. There is simply no credible way to say that the Grovenor ordinance allows the developer to do in two steps what the law clearly prohibits him from doing at all. As our Commissioners, you can change the law, but you cannot change the way citizens read the law. Even a Mercy groundhog knows that what -- that equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, what that means. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Good evening. Maurice Wiener: Hello. I'm Maurice Wiener, reside at 1734 South Bayshore Lane, in Coconut Grove, which immediately overlooks the proposed project. I'm also the chairman of the company that owns the Grove Isle Club & Hotel, which is the -- one-third of the island to the east -- at the east end, again, immediately overlooking this project, and I'd like to come at this from a different perspective, ifI could. I'm not interested in traffic. I'm not interested in sewer lines, and I'm not interested in blocked views and, you know, a lot of the things that people raise. I'm really interested in Coconut Grove and where we are in this community. I moved in this community over 20 years ago. I felt it was a balanced community. We were famous for being a place where you could work, you could live. There were professional people. There were artists. There -- the entertainment and recreational opportunities in the Grove were boundless with waterfront. We had the playhouse, the Coconut Grove Playhouse, one of perhaps ten institutions of regional nonprofit theater which had reached national acclaim. We had the Museum of Science. We had Vizcaya. We had artistically oriented movie houses. We had art galleries and plenty of artists and other professionals who found this a very enjoyable community. Where are we today? Coconut Grove Playhouse, it's historic. It's empty; it's gone, and it sits there as an empty building. We have no artistic movie houses. The Museum of Science -- and it's on its way out heading downtown. Vizcaya. What would be the impact on Vizcaya if the hospital were somehow not viable some day and passed into hands who we have absolutely no idea who that would be? So I'd like to then approach this from what is the hospital industry, and our company invested in the hospital industry for many years, and so, I think I know something about it. It is axiomatic that people stand here and say that why don't the -- why doesn't the hospital just build City ofMiami Page 206 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 an office building, when the hospital, as we all know, must be cutting edge to attract doctors to go to a hospital? Chairman Gonzalez: Your -- Mr. Wiener: I would like to address a doctor who -- and say to him, why don't you move into this office building, and someday, you'll have a very nice hospital next door? He'll say, well, I'll go where there's already a nice hospital. Thank you -- Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon -- Maurice Wiener: -- because my patients are not interested in an X-ray when you need an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), so -- Chairman Gonzalez: I need you to conclude because your time is up, and I need to be fair to both sides, so -- Mr. Wiener: OK, so I would just like to say that we are losing all of our institutions that made this community a place where people wanted to live, and if we do not provide a way for this institution to survive -- and believe me, everybody knows Mt. Sinai, Baptist, the downtown medical center with the University ofMiami attached has modernized and they're cutting -edge hospitals. If this is no longer a cutting -edge hospital, and it's not today, and I take at face value they're going to make it a cutting edge -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Wiener: -- we will -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Wiener: -- lose this institution. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Cindi de Rothschild: Hello. My name is Cindi de Rothschild. I live on 2901 South Miami Avenue. That's the little patch of houses between US 1 and Vizcaya, and I heard a lot of hype today about projected studies. What I'd like to talk about is strictly practical reality. Now I live less than two miles from here, maybe it's a mile and a half. Tonight I came to this meeting. I left my house at 6 o'clock. I was parking my car at 6:25. This is normal, everyday traffic. I can't even imagine what the fraffic is going to be if this is allowed to happen, these huge buildings. Sometimes it takes me ten minutes just to get out of my driveway because, when the light is red at US 1 and the fraffic is backed up almost to Vizcaya, I sit in my driveway for ten minutes trying to get out. It is impossible now. I'd hate to think what the future is going to be. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Sir. Andrew Hague: Good evening. My name is Andrew Hague, and my address is withheld, pursuant to Florida Statute, but suffice it to say, my house is within one house of the Halissee drive across the street from Mercy Hospital, so I'm one of the closest ones to having an impact on this project, and I'm not a member of any of the homeowners associations that have been listed in support of this project, but am in support of this project because of traffic. I am concerned that if this project does not go through with whatl consider to be lower density occupancy of this project, that some other project that Mercy Hospital has planned for this property will go into place, an office building, some other proposed plan, and it will mean even more traffic for South Bayshore Drive, and that will mean that it's even more difficult for me to City ofMiami Page 207 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 get out of my driveway, and I do not have any other alternative to get out of my driveway other than South Bayshore Drive. This is the first developer that has come to me and explained to me their plan in detail. No other developer in the past has come to me, even though I am the one that is immediately adjacent to south -- to Mercy Hospital. In the last two years, I have had my wall knocked down because of a traffic accident, and I have been rear -ended waiting to turn into my driveway. It's daily there're accidents in front of my house, and there's nothing that can be done with the traffic on South Bayshore Drive. The only thing that can be done is the amount of density on South Bayshore Drive, and the fact that this G/1 [sic] is a little different because it's being built on a piece of property that juts out onto the bay. It's not being plopped down between two houses. It's being built next to a hospital out on the bay. It's not being put between two houses, so it's a little -- it's distinguishable from Grovenor or another piece of property. That's something that should be taken into consideration when you make your decision, and it's something that you have to think about the safety and concerns of the citizens, and I urge you to approve this project for the density issue on this project. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir, you're recognized. Ron Nelson: Hello. My name is Ron Nelson. I live at 2535 Inagua Avenue, in Coconut Grove. I'm here speaking out of both sides of my mouth on this project. I like what they've done about preserving the bay. I like fairly low -density. I don't like the height, which I've stated from the beginning. As far -- I'm also here to disagree with Jack Luft on the intent of the G/I ordinance since I'm -- been credited with developing the G/I ordinance or making it happen, and I can assure you that Jack Luft's interpretation of the intent of the G/I ordinance is -- was not my intent when I worked so hard to get the GI ordinance written. I'm also here as a realist to say that I don't know what this Commission's going to do, and this Commission might vote in favor of this project -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Or might vote against. Mr. Nelson: -- or might vote against, but I -- so leave it to say I'm a very bad gambler. I always hedge my bets, and I'm here to ask you -- because I haven't heard it said by anyone else here tonight -- that if you are so inclined to vote for this project, that you need to take some things into consideration; one is that zoning is not project specific, so if this project, this property is zoned R-4, and Mr. Perez, for whatever reason, does not build this project -- and he's an honorable man, and I'm sure he intends to build it, but if he does not build this project, anything that could be built under R-4 can be dumped there, and whatever that number of units is, 2,500, 1,500, whatever it is, it can be built, so you need to make sure that this zoning is granted specific to this project, and that can be done with a covenant that runs with the land, I believe. I've spoke to County attorneys who say they do it at the County, so you need to put restrictions on this if you are so inclined to vote for it. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Sir, you're recognized. Neil Schiller: Good evening. My name is Neil Schiller. I'm a lawyer in the law firm of Becker and Poliakoff at 3111 Sterling Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312. I'm here tonight representing the Bay Colony Condo Association, which is southwest of the project, and I'm registered to lobby on their behalf. Several weeks ago Bay Colony wrote all of you a letter -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have you paid your fee? Mr. Schiller: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Schiller: Yes. Bay Colony wrote a letter to you several weeks ago regarding to our position City ofMiami Page 208 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 to this project and outlining some of the concerns that we had regarding this project. Why I'm here tonight to report that we've met with the developers and the development team and no longer have any issues with the project and withdraw our opposition. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Gary Vander Voort: Good evening. Gary Vander Voort, 1690 South Bayshore Lane, longtime resident of the neighborhood. Wow. What an evening. Each side has very convincing lawyers all insisting that the other party doesn't know what they're talking about, but in reality, what we're facing here tonight is a decision that you've already voted down twice to say no to. I'm against it. In reality, also, you have to look at -- there's just tremendous amount of money and interest involved in this. We've got the developer going to make millions and millions. Of course, they're favorite. They're doing their job. They're going to twist and turn any regulation to suit what they want to do, and then, in the other circumstance, we have Mercy Hospital. This meeting has turned more to a collection process, a fundraiser for Mercy Hospital, as opposed to dealing with the facts we need to do with it. Hey, they're a wonderful organization. They do a lot of good, charitable work, but they've kind of run astray on this issue. In following and running to the gold, they've decided to throw the neighborhood and the neighbors right under the bus. Let's talk about the neighborhood. You think about this neighborhood and where it's located, how close to the city, Coconut Grove, downtown. This is unique in the United States. It's a model that a lot of other cities should have, q neighborhood filled with single-family homes, some condominiums, low-rise, mid -rise. It's a wonderful area. This isn't a deteriorating neighborhood that needs a financial injection of a lot of capital and change. This is a great neighborhood, and I hope you vote this proposition down. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Sir. Applause. ScottMcNary: Commissioners, my name is ScottMcNary. I reside at 170 Shore Drive South, Miami, Florida 33133. I'm a member of the board of governors of the Bay Heights Improvement Association. I'm here today to support the proposal. Today we've heard from a number of people that have argued that this sets dangerous precedent. This sets no precedent at all. It's an exercise of your discretion to determine whether, on these facts and these circumstances, this is an appropriate project for this community, and I suggest that it is. The reality is Mercy Hospital is going to do something with this land. They have every right to do so. It is their land. They are going to sell this land. They need it to buy, according to them, equipment but certainly, to renovate their rundown structure. If you've been to Mercy Hospital as many times as I have, you will understand, of course, that it is rundown. It needs a great deal of renovation, and this money is going to be used for that purpose. If they don't sell it to Related, they're going to use it for some other purpose, and I will guarantee you, the fraffic conditions that will exist, the traffic that we will have to deal with on Bayshore because of another project that Mercy Hospital will engage in rather than this one, will be truly horrible. This project is limited to the -- by the developer. We've talked to all of these folks; talked to John Matuska from Mercy Hospital. It's limited to 300 units. They're going to cost in excess of $3 million per unit. I will suggest to you that there is not going to be one single car from those condominium units that's going to have any affect on those of us that deal with rush hour fraffic on Bayshore, and that is the issue, Bayshore fraffic. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Sir. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. City ofMiami Page 209 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 John de Olazarra: My name is John de Olazarra. I live at 1689 South Bayshore Lane, a couple of blocks from the -- from Mercy Hospital. I find it rather ironic -- because I hear the words of Johnny Winton, one of the former Commissioners, who said, watch out, folks, what you wish for because you may get it, and it was always a -- kind of a veiled threat that, you know, you need to look at the -- and pick the lesser of the evils. Everybody keeps standing up here and talking about Mercy Hospital and what they can do by right and all these, you know, horrific scenarios, but we all come back to the fact that our infrastructure, our community can't support the development, whether it's 300 units, whether it's 200 units, we've got South Bayshore Drive, which is a historic road which is rated "F" by the FDOT, that can't support any development, unfortunately, and it's a sad affair for Mercy, but you know, candidly, I think that the staff and the Commission ought to be looking at a moratorium on any further development and any additional density at Mercy because the community has grown up around this G/1 [sic] zoned property and it can't support the additional density and the additional use. You know, as part of our prep on this, we've kind of become students of the Municipal Code, and we pulled out the Section 2210 of the Municipal Code, and it talks about the 16 different standards that are a requisite of any rezoning of a piece of property, and I would encourage you all to pull it out and take a look at it because staff clearly hasn't, and I'll just enumerate a couple of them. That the proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Pull it out and read it because it doesn't, folks. It doesn't come close to it. That the proposed change is in harmony with the established land use patterns. Putting R-4 next to R-1 or R-3 is not in harmony. The proposed changes related to adjacent and nearby districts. Again, your -- this is in a residential neighborhood. This G/1 [sic] was established as are G/1 [sic] scattered across the City, at a unique time in the history of the City. Would we suggest that we build this hospital in an R-1 neighborhood today? No. The answer would be no, so history changes, thus, the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: In con -- Mr. de Olazarra: -- G/1 [sic] use ofMercy -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- conclusion. Mr. de Olazarra: Yes. In conclusion, you know, I would encourage you to listen to the voting public. We just had an election in District 2. The incumbent was voted out resoundedly [sic] by a voting public that would sug -- that sug -- who supported this project, mind you, and was very vocal about her support of this project, but they voted her out because the community says, let's put the breaks on development. Let's step back. Our quality of life is eroded irreparably. We -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. -- Mr. de Olazarra: -- can't get from PointA to Point B. You guys are our watchdogs. You guys are the last stop. Please do your job and protect our citizens. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. de Olazarra: Thank you. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am. Cynthia McCall: My name is Cindy McCall. I live at 1628 Nocatee Drive, in Natoma Manors. The reason we moved to Natoma Manors was because it was a quiet community. We really enjoyed living there. It's a true neighborhood. You can walk your dogs or your children, if you have them, and we see the traffic every single morning cutting through to get to Mercy Hospital. It is nonstop; people coming through in the mornings and in the afternoons. When the marathon City ofMiami Page 210 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 was run last year, and I believe it's going to be run again this year, when they stopped it on a Sunday morning, stopped the traffic so the runners could get through, the cars were packed up from -- all the way from Alatka and Tigertail back up through Nocatee almost to 17th Avenue, and that was all fraffic going to Mercy, so I encourage you to please, please vote yes for this project. We fruly believe that condominium unit would bring a lot less fraffic to our neighborhood and our quality of life. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ma'am. Barbara Lange: Barbara Lange, 3495 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, and I oppose this project also. On Jack Luft, with his interpretation of the amendment for GI, I remember working on that also, and I don't think that was your intention either, an upzoning for that, and I'm going to make this short and make this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Lange: -- short and make everybody happy. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir. Agustin Arellano: My name is Agustin Arellano. I live in 8580 Schoolhouse Road, in Miami 33143. I'm speaking on behalf of the Mercy -- the board of directors ofMercy Foundation, of which I am a member. First of all, I would like to clarify the statement made by a young lady a few minutes ago indicating that Mercy Hospital, in 2004, had a profit of $220 million. What Mercy Hospital had was revenues of $220 million and expenses of close to $220 million. That year Mercy Hospital barely broke even, so that's a big difference. The board of directors of the Mercy Foundation is backing this project. We feel that it's the -- the project -- the use for the land that would benefit the most people. The City ofMiami will receive a big taxable base from 300 luxury condominiums. The residents in that area will see improvements made to Bayside [sic] Drive and will also get a boardwalk along the coast there, and most importantly, the City -- the citizens of the City ofMiami are going to reap the benefits of all the improvements that are going to be made at Mercy Hospital, so I urge you to please vote for this project. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ma'am. Berta Dieguez: Good evening. My name is Berta Dieguez. I'm just plain mother of five kids. I lived in Bay Heights for the last 22 years, and I have raised five kids there. I look at the little kids that play around and I look at them, and I say, this is not going to be for long because of the traffic that we're looking to be getting. The fact is that a project of this size will bring many cars, many service workers, many people in and out of our neighborhood that we have enough of. Also, there is a proposed addition to the expanding of the ER (Emergency Room) at Mercy Hospital, which will also bring more and more people around neighborhood, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But are you -- you're against that, the expansion of the --? Ms. Dieguez: I am against it totally. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But that's not the issue. The issue -- Ms. Dieguez: No, but the issue is the traffic, and the issue is that I'm totally against anything else because I want to save the Grove -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Dieguez: -- and so far, what I'm seeing is more construction, more construction. Pretty City ofMiami Page 211 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 soon, it's going to look like Brickell or Miami Beach, and I don't want that for my grandchildren or my children. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Dieguez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir. Steven Alexander: Good evening. Steve Alexander, and I think this is one of the very few times I've been before this board without being paid to be here, so it's a privilege for me. I am probably the second closest person -- ifI can tell by where everybody said their addresses are tonight -- to the project. I ride my bike in front of the project every morning. Several times a day I drive through the Grove. I've been here since the hospital expanded their office buildings. I was here when the Grovenor came to town and everybody was talking about traffic. Mr. Sarnoff, on the Home Depot issue, the number one thing that you were concerned about for your neighborhood was increase of traffic from a business. Hospital's a business, and this hospital generates a whole lot of traffic, and a lot of this traffic -- the gentleman was talking about being rear -ended in front of his house. A lot of these people don't know exactly where they're going to go to that hospital. There's one drive, there's another drive. They get confused, and the traffic in front of the hospital is an issue. When the Grovenor was added, I can tell you, as somebody that goes up and down Bayshore Drive every single day, several times a day, I didn't notice any additional traffic, OK. I didn't notice anything, but alternatively, when the hospital added space, it was a very clear difference. Parks. This project -- right now, if you go out to that drive along the bay, a security guard from the hospital will come along and say you can't park here. Don't blame them. They got liability issues. They should be doing that. You don't -- as a resident, you don't have access to that part of that bay. Mr. Perez is not only going to give us access, he's going to make sure that it's maintained well so that we have, in add -- in effect, another park here. OK, parks again, $3 million -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Conclusion. Mr. Alexander: -- $3 million of impact fees for this City for its parks. These are big, easy things to understand for everybody. It's very simple. Your staff has recommended approval. They believe it's legal. They believe it ought to go forward, and it does a lot of benefit for the community, and it will be less damaging in terms of traffic than anything else that you can think to put there. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir. Francisco Dieguez: Yes. My name is Dr. Francisco Dieguez. I'm at 117 Shore Drive West, in Bay Heights, been a resident of Bay Heights for many, many years, and I'm opposed to this project because of the impact it will have in all the area -- all the issues have been already spoken about, and I ask all you Commissioners to fulfill your duties as our watchdogs in the community and reject this project. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Dieguez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, you're recognized. Donna Sweeny: Donna Sweeny, 2843 South Bayshore Drive. I've been a resident of South Bayshore Drive since 1987. Until last year, I lived at 2000 South Bayshore Drive, literally within walking distance ofMercy Hospital. On December 5, 2003, my husband suffered a City ofMiami Page 212 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 catastrophic cerebral hemorrhage at our home. As the fire -rescue man ran up three flights of stairs to reach my husband, who was bleeding profusely from the head, they informed me that the Mercy's emergency room was closed. Do you know what that means? It means the hospital can no longer accept any ambulances because they're scrambling to care for the large number of patients who are already there, so my husband and I got into the ambulance for what seemed like a very long ride through late night streets of downtown Miami to Cedars. Very precious minutes were lost, and what did it mean to me and my four step -children? Four weeks, one month of leaving home early to make the trip to Cedars; stay there all day; no chance to go home for a rest; no comfort of being in a neighborhood hospital where we are known and with which we are familiar; countless hours on cell phones trying to arrange for nurses and a hospital bed at our house, when it could have been easier if we were close at home. Bottom line, Mercy Hospital was built 56 years ago. Its ER is almost 30 years old. It's woefully inadequate to address the needs of our community, which has grown so much in the last few decades. Mercy needs about $200 million to update its facilities, principally, the emergency room. The proposed project provides half of that money. I have listened to and read the objections to this project, and always, there's been an underlying ignorance of the facts. I urge you to let this project proceed. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Good evening. Carol Garvin: Carol Garvin, 1815 Tigertail. I have owned a property in Coconut Grove for over 35 years, and I'm opposed to this project. The proposed change does nothing to promote any future land use goals set forth in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhoods [sic] Plan. You call us the jewel of the city, but the proposed change would endanger, not protect our quality of life in Coconut Grove. The proposed change does nothing to foster development and revitalization of blighted or declining areas in the City. The proposed change does not promote or facilitate economic development or the growth of job opportunities in the City. The proposed change does nothing to foster the growth and development of downtown as a regional center, domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment. The proposed change does nothing to promote the efficient use of land and minimize land use conflicts. The proposed change does nothing to protect and conserve the City's significant natural and coastal resources, and the proposed change would promote condo sprawl, which taken to its logical conclusion, would create a visual barrier along Biscayne Bay, blocking the view for everyone except those privileged enough to afford these condominiums. It was the beauty of Biscayne Bay that drew the original pioneers to Coconut Grove. When the Grove was settled, there were no roads linking it to anywhere else. There was only the bay, and the people arrived by sailboat. The bay fed them and provided them with lumber from shipwrecks to build their homes, and it was their avenue of transportation. Three monoliths, 310 feet, 360, and 410 feet high do not belong in our village on the bay. They are out of character, overbearing, and inappropriate for Coconut Grove. When Grovenor was built, laws were changed to protect us from this type of debacle. I beg you to uphold the law and deny this application. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Sweeny: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Good evening. Michael Smith: Good evening. My name's Michael Smith. I live at 1660 South Bayshore Court, which is Beacon Harbor. It's approximately 500 feet from this property -- the property under question, and I'm in favor of the project. From my balcony, I see Grove Isle, and I will see this project. I like how they both will look. I'm in favor for many reasons; I'll state three. There are other projects that could be built on this property that will bring more traffic and have a bigger detriment to the community. Two, I believe that Florida -- South Florida, Miami, and Coconut Grove is a better place to live today than it was ten years ago, five years ago. One of the City ofMiami Page 213 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 reasons for this is development. Development is progress. Progress is better than a paved parking lot behind a chain link fence, which is what it is now, and lastly, I believe the benefit to Mercy Hospital is a true benefit to the entire community, so I urge you to vote in favor of this project. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Sharon Wilson: My name is Sharon Wilson, and I live at 1632 South Bayshore Court. I, too, am affected greatly by the traffic. However, I feel there's a greater issues [sic] that are at stake here, and it's been said many, many times tonight that the City Commission passed the ordinance 8/0, and that they would not allow -- that -- which would not allow a G/I property to be sold and rezoned, and in my opinion, in my books, that should say it all. We shouldn't even go beyond that. It has been voted on twice, and it -- and that is the law. I have an issue. I'm sure that the developer is a very honorable man, butt have an issue that a powerful developer has more power than the people that live in this community, and also, more than the laws of this community. There is a compelling need for a medical facility and its future life and contribution to this citizenry of this city and in the community. There is no compelling need for a 300-unit high-rise condominium development on the bay front. Mercy Hospital has -- says in its own brochure -- and it was read tonight -- that should the option for high -end condominium project not materialize, the development team has an alternative plan to utilize the parcel's existing G/I zoning designation, and Mercy Hospital also says that we believe the community clearly should have and does have a voice as to what is built on that parcel. Part of the agreement in that Mercy -- in the Mercy agreement with Related Group is that Mercy cannot build for ten years. However, the Related project is going to take close to six years, and I think it's pretty clear -- the math is very clear. We'll have something going on shortly after that. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We need you to conclude. Your time is -- Ms. Wilson: I'd just like to say, in closing, that we should not have to beg the Commission to uphold the law and those things that have been voted on already and agreed upon, and I think that the job of the Commission is to protect the citizenry and not do spot zoning. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Frontis Wright Evins: Good evening. I'm Frontis Wright Evins. I'm also known as "Dub" is my nickname. I'm wearing two hats here tonight. I am the president of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce, and I am also a licensed hospital architect, a master planning expert. I am not under the employ or have I ever worked at Mercy Hospital. The Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce strongly endorses this project, as it brings a very welcome component of potential neighbors, friends, customers, and clients into our shops, restaurants, and businesses. As you know, the Grove has been rumored to be in decline, and we heard that earlier, that some of our larger institutions are leaving. We cannot let Mercy Hospital fall into that category. They say it is not the way it was once commercially. As you know, Coconut Grove has formed a BIC (Business Improvement Committee) to enhance the business and have viable commercial district. Hand in hand with these public endeavors abiding a mercantile growth comes quality residential, i.e., private development. I would like to think in terms of development as facilitators, as agents for change and improvement. The Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce would like for you to strongly consider the approval of this project. Wearing my other hat as a professional architect and hospital master planner, I cannot imagine a more complementary use for this project to guarantee the future success, financial viability ofMercy Hospital. I've learned a lot here tonight, certain terms like vertical density and the confusion over what density is. If you take 150 people and put them on one acre or 300 people and put them on six acres, which is less dense per unit. I would like to also briefly mention that the choice is clear, but one option that don't think has been adequately discussed is ifMercy's denied this plan. If they're denied this plan, they will develop. It will come back in another way. It may not be optimal, and City ofMiami Page 214 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 it may not be able to help them achieve their future objectives. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Ellie Haydock: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Ellie Haydock. I reside at 1617 Tigertail, and I'm a member of the Natoma Manors Homeowners Association. I think they're a great association. They're working for the best -- good of the neighborhood, but not for the good of the Grove. I think that the project that's being proposed -- I was -- wanted to see the scale. There's a great deal of discussion about the scale, so I went next door to our neighbors, the Hydes, and got the -- Alec and Casey and Abigail Hyde to work with me on -- with a model, knowing that I couldn't do it by myself so we picked out the Legos, and this little red box here represents a single -story home, which is right there on east and west Glencoe. Now there might be a home that has a variance, so maybe it's 30 feet high because the R-1 height is 25 feet. Now, when I went -- when we went to build the proposed project, I wanted you to be able to see that this is the scale, and it doesn't matter what's in the pictures, but this is the scale. Now what's currently at the hospital is five -story, or I think that's R-3, so here is an example ofR-3, and this is my point. Please do not change the zoning to R-4. It's just not compatible. I have one more. This is Grove Isle, but anyways, that's all I wanted to say. I hope you could see it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Very well illustrated. Ms. Haydock: Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Hi. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You learn something new everyday with Legos. Nancy Benouaich: Yes. My name is Nancy Benouaich. I reside at 243 Shore Drive East 33133. I am in between. I have behind me South Bayshore Drive and in front of me is Shore Drive East, and at 5 o'clock it's bumper -to -bumper in my back, and in the front it is Shore Drive East, which all the traffic cutting -- and cutting through my street. Presently, I'm vice president of the Bay Heights Homeowners Association. Before that, I was on the Cocoanut Grove Village Council, and before that, I was eight years as president of Bay Heights. I've been around the block once or twice. I was here in the Grove when the hippies were walking down the street with their no shoes, so -- and when I look at -- when I think back to Winn Dixie down there and I see what's over there now, there's a big difference, so I don't think any of us should be afraid of what's going on and the growth of the Grove. It's fantastic. Everybody's saying we don't want this, we don't want that over there by the land. Right now there's floating chickens there. We wouldn't dare go walking down there, and they have told us they were ---they're going to have a walkway through there where we'll be able to go and have a -- not only you will have to walk down to Kennedy Park, but we'll be able to go there, and I said, well, are we going to be able to stop and have a coffee there? Fantastic. Getting back to the G/I [sic], the Constitution of this United States, as old as it is, is flexible, and I want you to remember that because every case is different, and I think you really need to think -- you know, a law is a law, but a law comes upon circumstances, and it needs to be changed and amended, so I want you to think about that, and also, there are many older people living in Bay Heights that need that hospital, and many people have said, it's old and it needs help. Well, I really think about $100 million could do some major help. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Your time -- City ofMiami Page 215 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Benouaich: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- is up. Yes, ma'am. Applause. Constance Steen: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Connie Steen. I reside at 1632 South Bayshore Court, stone's throw from the proposed development at Mercy Hospital and part of Glencoe Sub. On a lighter note, my husband and I have lived and worked in the north Grove for nearly 50 years, one of the few tranquil residential neighborhoods still left, besides south Grove and Coral Gables. I have in my possession 43 signatures collected from my immediate neighbors, Glencoe East, Glencoe West, and South Bayshore Court, all within 500 feet of the proposed development. Ladies and gentlemen, please do not change the density of this north Grove. This is the beginning of the destruction of this particular area. Once you allow the genie out of the bottle, you will never be able to get it back. Coconut Grove has a numerous -- has numerous properties under the G/I zoning, an easy target for additional zoning changes once you allow the Mercy property to take the lead. The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) estate made this land grant to the sisters of St. Joseph many years ago. They envisioned a hospital, a school to learn and play, a church, retirement homes for the elderly, assisted living, possibly, and a home for the sisters themselves, all for nonprofit. Never did they envision that this lovely piece of land next to the Vizcaya to be used for private gains by a developer to build in such magnitude. It is totally out of character. It does not fit. My husband and I are in the autumn of our lives and should not have to care, but we do. We care about the young people and their children born today and tomorrow. Sooner or later, someone will say the sins of our fathers, what have they done to us? Thank you for listening. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Michael Larimore: My name is Michael Larimore. I grew up in the Grove, and I currently live across the street from the project in Bay Heights. I'm very interested in the quality of life, and I'm quite concerned about the traffic from an expanding Mercy Hospital that could possibly look like Baptist or it could turn into a Jackson, so I've also -- my quality of life's got me to join the homeowners association, so I have some insight into some of the things that went on with this, and we hired an attorney to represent us and fight against the development. When I heard that the attorney had reached an agreement with the developer, I was surprised and I was worried that we might have sold out our quality of life, so I listened a lot of Tucker Gibbs, who is our attorney -- I listened to his presentations with concern that we might have sold out, and I asked him at each one of them, point blank, if you take away the financial settlement, is this still a good settlement for Bay Heights and the north Grove, speaking primarily in terms of quality of life, and his reply every time was absolutely yes. Tucker's very knowledgeable, and we pay him to give us the facts. When he tells us that the agreement is good for the residents of the north Grove, based solely on its nonfinancial merits, I believe him, so I'm for this project, and I think the density is very important. I don't understand why they call it upzoning when you're going from an unrestricted G/I to a lower density. I'd call it downzone. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Mr. Larimore: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Andres Gomez Mena: Good evening. My name is Andres Gomez Mena. I live at 3560 Vista Court. I've lived there for 14 years. You're all my Commissioners, but you, Mr. Sarnoff, in particular, represent my district. When you ran for the district, you mentioned you were not definitely against all development. You were just for reasonable development that would City ofMiami Page 216 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 improve our quality of life, or at least, would not destroy our quality of life. You have here a vote, sir. You vote against this project today, Mercy Hospital will use that land for other uses that, as all the people that have mentioned this today here, will definitely lower our quality of life. If they don't do it, Mercy Hospital will reduce its services, would reduce its capacity to service us as a community, and that will furthermore reduce our quality of life. Sir, you have to vote for this project. This -- and all of you have to vote for this project because the option is really the worst thing that could happen to my neighborhood, all right, and to the City ofMiami, and as far as 300 units increasing the traffic, like everybody else said here, no. An office building, a greater facility is -- for the hospital's activities would much further increase our traffic. The fraffic that we're all complaining about is not because of one 300 story -- or three 300 three 300-apartment buildings in our neighborhood. It's because there are 50 such building north of our neighborhood and 50 other south of our neighborhood, and they all have to come either through US 1 or through South Bayshore Drive. It's not those three buildings that are going to increase the fraffic. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Jihad Rashid: My name is Jihad Rashid. I reside at 2983 Washington Street. I work in Coconut Grove Village West. I'm here representing the Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, which has passed a resolution urging your support for the rezoning. We cite a lot of conditions. We realize that things do not stay the same. We have unprecedented growth, so it's not a question of density. It's a question of practibility [sic] and appropriateness. We see this as a well conceived project that will usher in a new era. We cannot return to the idyllic days of the fishing village that Coconut Grove once was. We cannot enjoy the era of the flower children, but we can make sure, as we shepherd in a new era, that we do good growth, and we have several other reasons why we support it. One, the Homeowners and Tenants Association supports this project because those neighbors immediately impacted by this project support it, and in concert with these folks, we see that we support them in their effort as they support this. There have been considerable testimony by the neighbors in the immediate surrounding area supporting this project, and we in the Village West also will be impacted by this project. The other good reason that we support this project is because Mercy Hospital has been a good neighbor, a good employer for this community, and some of the West Grove residents had their first jobs at Mercy Hospital, and we enjoy the services of the hospital, so we, in concert, urge good governance, that you hear the people and that you operate in the overwhelming benefit for the overwhelming good of this community, Coconut Grove, as well as Miami, and including the Village West. Additionally, the things that we consider about this project is that they will agree to contribute 1.700 -- $1.7 million towards affordable housing, and this is a important and crucial issue for our community, as well as the South Florida region. We also will expect to receive 700 construction jobs for this project, so we can go on that good governance requires hearing the people and appropriate development, and we urge you to support this project for good reasons. We cannot retreat to the past, and we want to move forward and take the best alternative, and we recognize, in conclusion, that Mercy Hospital have other alternatives, and those alternatives will not be as good as the one that's proposed here, which is a well conceived project. Thank you for your time. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Applause. Jason Bloch: Good evening. Thank you. My name is Jason Bloch. I'm a resident of 3501 West Glencoe Street. I also am the president of the Glencoe Neighborhood Association, several of City ofMiami Page 217 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 which members are here tonight. I'm speaking in opposition to the project, and first, I'd like to thank the Commissioners because I know you have a very difficult responsibility here, and I know that all of you want to do what is best for the City ofMiami and its residents. We don't think that the developer has presented you with a case that what they want to do is best for the City ofMiami residents. I think the way to describe what they have done, both in dealing with the residents and with this Commission, can be described only as audacious. I was surprised when I heard Ms. Dougherty say among the neighbors that she said she reached out to was the Glencoe Neighborhood Association, our association. In fact, Related refused to meet with us, and I have letters from our attorney indicating -- confirming that they refused to meet with us. They did not reach out to me as a homeowner. They did not reach out to the other neighbors, and I would just like the Commission to be aware, ifI may -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You got one minute. Mr. Bloch: -- exactly where Glencoe is. This is the Mercy Hospital site. This is Halissee Street, which is going to be the entrance for the project. This is Glencoe Sfreet. We're right next door. One of the pictures that Mr. Lukacs showed to the Commission, which showed the enormous building and its juxtaposition of the house off of Bayshore, was the entrance to Glencoe Sfreet. Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Please be on the microphone, please. Commissioner Sarnoff Just hold it up to your mouth. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're divided by a wall, right? Commissioner Sarnoff Hold it up to your mouth. Mr. Bloch: I'm sorry? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a wall dividing your neighborhood from --? Mr. Bloch: There is a short wall that goes down Halissee Sfreet. Our neighborhood is right next door to the proposed project impact. Chairman Gonzalez: You need to speak on the mike. Mr. Bloch: I apologize. Can you hear me now? Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Bloch: Good. As I say, The Related Group chose not to speak with us. We had several concerns, and instead of addressing them, they suggested that we raise our concerns with you in front of the Commission. Obviously, in the two minutes that have or if some of my members relay the time, I can give you some of them, but certainly, not all of them. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Bloch: I would suggest that a common theme that you've heard tonight ftom several members of the community, including those representing neighborhood organizations, was traffic, their fear about what an alternative to this project would bring, and I can tell you -- because I was here at the Zoning Board meeting, and I also attended a home -- a condo association meeting at the Bay Colony Condo -- I own a small one -bedroom unit thatl rent out there -- an informational session. The Related has told the community that if they don't put up this project, another project consisting of medical office towers will go in there, and the impact to Bayshore and the community will that -- will be that much higher, and I would suggest that the City ofMiami Page 218 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 speakers that you have heard in support have been under the presumption that if they do not support this project, those will happen, butt would suggest that is a fallacy. If you look at the actual Zoning Ordinance -- Chairman Gonzalez: On all fairness to everyone, you have exceeded your time. Eric Scherr: I'll give him my time. Chairman Gonzalez: You are three -- Pardon me? Mr. Scherr: I'll give him the rest of my time. Chairman Gonzalez: You're going to -- Mr. Scherr: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- yield your time -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to him? OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- listen -- Chairman Gonzalez: You have an additional two minutes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we need names because we still have -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. We need your name to the Clerk so -- Mr. Scherr: Eric Scherr. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Eric? Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Mr. Scherr: Eric Scherr. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Scherr -- Chairman Gonzalez: Eric Scherr. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- donates his two minutes, so get his paper, Eric Scherr. All right. All right. Mr. Bloch: Thank you, and this is so important. If you look at the Zoning Ordinance, it does not allow a medical office building to go onto this site; it is prohibited. The only way that it could happen is, in new structures, this Commission would have to give a special exception, and further, office uses could not be used beyond which is a customary accessory use to the principal governmental/institutional use. In other words, the only way that you could have office space at this hospital site would be, A, to get a special exception by this Commission, and if there was going to be all that traffic, you would hear from the same neighbors, and good government would suggest that you would not want to do that, and B, it couldn't go beyond what would -- what is traditionally allowed for that institutional use. There is a hospital there now. That hospital has been there for years. They have never attempted to put up one million square feet of office space as they have threatened to the community they would do if this project was not City ofMiami Page 219 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 given, and I would suggest that one million square feet of medical office space is not customary for a hospital of this size. This hospital has all the office space that it needs because it has been operating and functioning as a hospital with the space that it needs. It is a false comparison. It is one that has been perpetrated on the community, and it has what caused by fear a number of these organizations to capitulate and come in to say to you candidly, we are afraid of what is going to happen if this project does not go in. That is a false comparison, and they have threatened and coerced these neighbors into doing something which would not otherwise happen. Now in terms of the audaciousness -- Chairman Gonzalez: You're running out of time, so -- Patricia Lyons: He can have mine. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Names. Ms. Lyons: Patricia Lyons. Chairman Gonzalez: Got yours? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Patricia what? Ms. Lyons: Lyons. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Lyas? Ms. Lyons: Lyons, L-Y-O-N-S. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Lyons, Patricia Lyons. Mr. Bloch: I think the gut reaction that people have when they see the scale and scope of this project is something that triggers the negative reaction to what's being proposed. You can see in this scale right here, this little itty bitty part is where, I believe, the condo where I own a unit in exists. My house is just a few feet further down the street. Perhaps, if a project had come in, something more reasonable, something smaller, something in scale with not as many units, the reaction wouldn't have been so great, but this is going from something abutting the least dense use, R-1, single-family homes like myself and my neighbors and people in the surrounding area, to the most intense use, and the argument that was made by one of the speakers on behalf of the Related that, well, that's not relevant what you're -- the Grovenor ordinance because you're changing the Grovenor ordinance, but the purpose of the Grovenor ordinance was to prevent this very thing happening. The old Zoning Code allowed and R-4 use came in. When this Commission amended that ordinance, you took that out. You explicitly said, we do not want R-4 in areas that abut something less dense, and this is the very definition of that. This is more than twice the size of anything that's even close to that and eight times the size of the buildings that are on my street, the condos. What else has The Related Group done in presenting to -- this to you to do the best thing that you can for the City? You saw the slides from Mr. Lukacs's presentation. The Planning Department originally said the change of this property from G/1 [sic] to R-4 results in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions in this area. The project is out of scale with the area, and then, inexplicably, with no analysis whatsoever, that decision is abruptly changed, considering none of the factors that you will have to consider under 2210. This matter comes to you after the Zoning Board has said, do not approve this; it is inconsistent with the use; after the Planning Board has says it is inconsistent with its use. They have come to you with --Anyone else? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anybody else want to waive two more minutes? Name? City ofMiami Page 220 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Julie McCready: Julie McCready. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Julie. Ms. McCready: Julie McCready. Vice Chairman Sanchez: McCree? Julie McCree [sic] waives her two minutes. Mr. Bloch: And Commissioner, I'll fry to wrap it up. It is clear what's going on here, and that is that we have a private developer who is trying to turn this sacred area, this protected area of Coconut Grove in the City ofMiami into something that is completely out of scale. You saw in that picture what it would look like from a house on Bayshore. Every time I want to go for a jog or anyone else, or take a bike ride, or any of the other citizens of the community in South Florida that come down to the arts festival or any of the other wonderful festivals, they're now going to see this thing that is literally going to look -- stick out like a sore thumb. Now let's talk about traffic very quickly because the fraffic study that was submitted by the proposed developer -- this is very important -- does not take into account that there will be lane closures in Bay Heights and there will be lane closures in the Natoma neighborhood. In fact, that is the very reason why they came in and say we now support the project. All of the facts and statistics that were in the traffic study that was submitted do not take that into account. Furthermore, I would suggest and advise you that the fraffic study does not even consider Glencoe Street. If you look at the study, there's a picture of this street. The name's not even on there, and all the intersections that are measured are not on there. These are just some of the objections and concerns that we had that we were unable to present, but now we must present to you, and for all of these reasons, I and the neighborhood association ask you to vote this project down. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Please, no clapping, please. Let's save time. Yes, ma'am. Lottie Person: Yes. My name is Lottie Person. I live at 3111 Plaza Street. I got out of my bed to come here to this meeting. Y'all can look at my eyes and the way that talk. I don't feel well, and I'm going to leave right after I speak. I'm speaking as an individual. When I first saw the presentation of The Related Group, I really liked it, what they showed us, and my vote is still going to be what it were then. I am voting yes for the project and whatever else that it takes to have that project, you know, to get off the ground. There were some people here from Village West, but they had to leave because they had their children with them, butl -- the only thing that I hope that the neighbors, you know, the opposing side, all of you can really get together and work out something, and maybe a compromise or -- some kind of compromise so everyone can be happy, butl do -- I don't live in that area, butl do know for one thing. Mercy Hospital, from many, many years ago, even before I moved away and retired back home, there was a lot of jobs were there for our African American people. There are -- what get me all -- the affordable housing and everyone know that Miami, and especially, Coconut Grove, just like Overtown, we need that affordable housing, so I'm asking, please, you all -- you all know I love you because all of you my favorite. I would like for you to please pass, support this project, and -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Person: -- I love you all. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Michael Butler: Michael Butler, 2580 Lincoln Avenue, Coconut Grove. We have almost five City ofMiami Page 221 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 hours into this party, so to speak. I'm going to ask you to stay focused. This isn't about Mercy Hospital. It is not about Mercy Hospital. It's about a developer coming in and requesting to change the Zoning Ordinance that this good body passed -- or not to change, to get a variance to the or -- an ordinance that this good body passed in June of 2004. Three ofyou gentlemen were on that board and you voted in favor of it. The other two newcomers to the board were not available to vote on it. I would employ you to stick to your convictions, and for the best interest of the citizens ofMiami, not the citizens of a piece here, a piece here, a piece here, the citizens of Miami, vote this down. I know it's four and a half hours. Stay focused. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Mariano Cruz. Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26 Sfreet, in the neighborhood ofAllapattah, in the City ofMiami since 1962. I know this here pretty good because I was here before all ofyou, more than 30 years coming to City Hall, and I know what's going on. First, I am going to say what want. I want the zoning of the parcel there at Mercy to be changed from G/I to R-4. That's the main thing. Now what I'm going to say is different. Oh, how I love when we get districts. Oh, how I love -- I remember years ago when I used to come here and everything was control south of Flagler Street. All the Commissioners and the Mayor and everybody was living south of Flagler Sfreet, so you don't see a homeless shelter or a prison in Coconut Grove. Never. The only thing you see something on 37 and 57, so now we need to keep a balance life. OK. The other day, I was for Camillus House. They had to change the zoning to have Camillus House in the border ofAllapattah/Overtown because you know what? Andl was opposed to Camillus House for almost 20 years. You know why? Because it is necessary for the whole community, and here (UNINTELLIGIBLE) good, but now Coconut Grove only got one vote. It used to be -- I remember when the Mayor used to be Natoma, Curtis Lane, Nocatee; all those streets were people were Commissioners or the Mayor. South Miami Avenue, Mayor Suarez, so you remember. They control, so what we were doing -- the only thing we were doing was taxpayers. We were paying money, but we were not represented. Now we have representation. That's why I encourage you because all those changes are good because, in our neighborhood, you remember the -- in Santa Clara Station, we got housing there, affordable housing, and that was government institutional there, in Allapattah Station, too. The Miami Station, we got affordable housing there too, OK, and that's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you got to -- at least they solving -- by doing that, we're solving the problem because don't tell me that -- because I remember when the neighbor resource was there, and you know what happened? The people of the Grove didn't want it. When it was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the GSA (General Services Administration), what happened? They didn't want it, so -- Chairman Gonzalez: Mariano. Mr. Cruz: -- they fought -- the neighbor resource was supposed to go to the Miami Coalition for the Homeless. Chairman Gonzalez: I need -- Mr. Cruz: They didn't want it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to be fair to everyone, so your time is up. Mr. Cruz: Yeah, OK. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Thank you so much. City ofMiami Page 222 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Judith Sandoval: Judith Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. Just briefly, I wanted to say that I think, in regard to traffic, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. So Mercy takes the 98 million from Mr. Perez and they improve the ER or whatever else they're going to do at Mercy. They're going to get a lot more traffic at Mercy because of it, so you're going to get the traffic there. It doesn't help any to have this condominium development. Another thing I'd like to say is that what's Mercy going to do next? Maybe Mr. -- you've all -- if you break the -- what's -- the rule in Coconut Grove that you can't do this kind of zoning without it reverting to -- if -- what's Perez going to do next? Maybe he's going to buy another piece from Mercy Hospital, another six acres somewhere else. They've got plenty of land. They could sell it, take another 98 million. Maybe he's going to build a whole little village in there and call it the Jorge Perez Village, like he did -- put his name on the terrible building at the University ofMiami School of Architecture. This is not only one instance. This is a precedent that you gentlemen can sell. I'm glad you're laughing. It's really a laughing matter. Mr. Perez, I'd like to ask you to do something else. If you're the gentleman that everybody here is praising you as being, I think you should reveal the terms and the amount of money with which you bought off one of the homeowner associations, and I don't think that sort of thing should be approved. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. No clapping, please. Yes, ma'am. Linda Bruton: My name is Linda Bruton. I live at 1640 Tigertail Avenue. I'd like to say I'm an artist, at least, I think of myself of an artist, and when I looked at these buildings, they looked like magnificent sculptures to me. I think they'll be beautiful on our underused waterfront, which is now no more than parking lot and rubble. People who are in favor of the project say, well, it's the lesser of the evils. I don't see it as the lesser of the evils, although I do think that a medical building would be a disaster. I think this won't impact our traffic, and I think the buildings are magnificent. I can't wait 'til the waterfront is opened. I've lived here since 1944, and I've never walked down Halissee to the bay. I can't wait. Thank you so much. Please approve it. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Good evening, Commissioner. Victor De Yurre: Good evening. How are you? Chairman Gonzalez: How are you, sir? Mr. De Yurre: Thank you. Very well. Chairman Gonzalez: Nice to see you. Mr. De Yurre: Thank you. I'm getting Alicia Cervera's two minutes -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK -- Mr. De Yurre: -- just for the record -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so you got four minutes. City ofMiami Page 223 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. De Yurre: -- and I feel we've been in a cell phone commercial all night long. We're getting everybody's minutes here, but that's all right. Victor De Yurre, 3625 Curtis Lane, Coconut Grove. As a former City Commissioner, I've been listening for hours to this process, and I've applied that mentality to what I've heard throughout the evening, and one of the main things that I looked for when I was in office was who are we dealing with? Who are the proponents? Here we have Related Group and Mercy Hospital. Needless to be said, Jorge Perez, who started working in the Planning Department of the City ofMiami, in -- back in the late '70s, if I'm not mistaken, and has a great reputation nationwide is an asset to us and is an asset to Coconut Grove, where he lives also. Mercy Hospital -- what could you say aboutMercy Hospital that we don't already know? It's an institution that's been there where my children were born, where many of us here had family members born and die, unfortunately, but it's there for us, so when I see the participants, I know that whatever they bring to the table is the truth, and they're going to stand by what they proffer to all of us. What are we talking about? We're talking about a 300-unit development, and 300 units -- and we've heard all the stories what they mean. People are going to buy it that are -- really are not 9-to-5 people; that it's going to be a particular group of individuals that are not going to create any traffic flow problems. I believe that's going to happen. What is the alternative? We don't know. Nothing may happen for years there, or something may that may not be what we want, as far as the traffic flow that people have been addressing. Where's it located? It's located in an isolated area; the closest thing is 600 feet away. What does it mean for the community? Well, if you talk aboutMercy Hospital gaining $96 million, what it means is more jobs. It means better environment, from a health wise standpoint for us that live close to the hospital. It means also that monies are being donated for different things; $2.5 million to improve our city parks, $6 million to improve Bayshore Drive, including 17th Avenue and that corner -- I don't know how more people have not gotten hurt with what goes on on that corner. Affordable housing, $1.6 million towards affordable housing, and we all know, in each one of your districts, that there's an area that does need help as far as affordable housing is concerned. We talk about the bay walk. It's improving, giving access to the people to the bayside. A lot of people don't have that ability to be on the water. We're looking for support, and we've seen a lot of people in favor, a lot of people opposed, and it's -- everybody's impassioned with their feelings, and that's the way it should be, but when I see that it's that -- it's split that way, whatl look for is, what about the approximate neighbors? You've got Bay Heights and Natoma, which is basically the bulk of that area, in favor, not that all are in favor, but a majority are in favor when the association represents to be so, so when I see all that, I see that it's a win -win for our community. It's a win -win for the hospital. It's a win -win for the tax base, which will increase by $33 million annually, but the bottom line is that, when you vote, you cannot take these things into consideration. Why? Because that's not what your vote is going to be based on. Your vote has to be based on legal issues, and the legal issue here tells you, as recommended by your staff that this should be approved, and I employ you to consider that and please vote yes for this project. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Ms. Marrero: Commissioners, I will not address you again, even though I want to. I just wanted -- I know Commissioner Sanchez wanted to see the traffic study, so I -- Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Your name for the record, please. Ms. Marrero: Yery Marrero, from Natoma Manors. Chairman Gonzalez: Please provide it to -- Commissioner Sanchez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the City Clerk. City ofMiami Page 224 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Marrero: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Who's next? Go ahead. Anthony Asbury: I'll go. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Asbury: Thank you very much. I'm at 2645 Halissee. My name is Anthony Asbury, and I would like all of you to know that this exciting project, and I would employ you to vote for it and change the zoning. I would also like to ask you if you could take the $33 million extra in the budget and put it towards our parks system? If this is a concern, maybe we can make a park that will have the impact that the neighbors need that are against this. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Luis Herrera: My name is Luis Herrera. I'm the president of the Vizcaya Homeowner Association. Before the time come, Commissioner Angel, let me say something about -- I'm American Cancer Society volunteer, like this gentleman before talk. I work free too. Chairman Gonzalez: Respect you for that. Mr. Herrera: OK. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: I have a lot of respect for all the people that work with the cancer society. Mr. Herrera: All, right. First of all, everybody mentioned they don't have no traffic by the apartment. There's plenty traffic that is going to come out. Like the gentleman over there, he said the bicycle -- he run a bicycle over there too. He not going to run the bicycle if you make the building. Now Mercy Hospital, they collecting money 365 days every year for the parking lot that they have from the Mercy Hospital. They have apartment next to the Mercy Hospital. They collecting money for there. We need -- Chairman Gonzalez: Which apartment? Mr. Herrera: -- a new -- Chairman Gonzalez: Which apartments are that? Mr. Herrera: Next to the -- next -- in front of the hospital, on the side, they got about three building, I think it is, or two, something like that. Chairman Gonzalez: You're talking about -- Mr. Herrera: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) be rental, it be rental. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Carlton Manor? Mr. Herrera: I don't know exactly the -- Chairman Gonzalez: That doesn't belong to Mercy Hospital. That belongs -- Mr. Herrera: I understand that. City ofMiami Page 225 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: -- to the Catholic church. Mr. Herrera: The Catholic church? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Herrera: But that money is collecting for the hospital too, I think. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't -- I know. Mr. Herrera: I'm not sure, I'm not sure. Chairman Gonzalez: But go ahead. Mr. Herrera: OK. They collecting money on the parking for the hospital. We need a new hospital in there. Why they want to sell that property when they need to put a new building in there? I think for the money they collecting in there, they can make a new building and they don't have to be sell their property. The property, they need it. Now, the government, they can give you money, a loan, or whatever, out of the taxes roll or taxes -- low taxes. They can build another hospital on there. I'm asking you, please, you are the lawyers of the neighborhood. You the lawyers of the neighborhood. Chairman Gonzalez: We are the Commissioners. Mr. Herrera: You represent all the neighbors. We vote for you people, and you sit down there to represent us. We need to vote down that project, only the hospital -- it needs some new hospital and they have some money to do that. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Winton, how are you, sir? Johnny Winton: Very well, thank you. How are you all this evening? Chairman Gonzalez: Good. Commissioner Sarnoff Feeling great. Mr. Winton: It's been -- is my two minutes working already? -- very interesting. I am not, however, going to fry to break new ground in this whole thing, and I'm not coming as the major expert. I'm not coming even as the final architect of the zoning change that dealt with this issue. I'm not going to talk about that either. I am, however, a voter. I live in Coconut Grove, and I live in the neighborhood across the street from Mercy Hospital -- that's Bay Heights -- and as many people have said that live immediately within the area, this issue is about traffic, and anyone who suggests that Mercy doesn't have other alternatives -- I don't care if Jorge Perez goes anywhere or anyone else. Mercy owns the land; Mercy has alternatives. Those alternatives -- there are no alternatives that Mercy has that they can do on their own. They don't need some other developer. Mercy can do on their property -- there is no alternative that will be good for our neighborhood as a result -- as it relates to their expansion. Rebuilding their hospital could be very good for our neighborhood. By the way, I stayed in Mercy Hospital when I had my appendix out two years ago in an emergency, and I can assure you they need upgraded facilities and they need them badly, and it isn't part of the joke. It's part of the reality. This money can help them do the kinds of things that they need to rebuild their hospital, but as a neighbor across the street, I don't want them doing things like adding additional medical office buildings, which they could add. I don't want them adding new clinics. I don't want them expanding the hospital because the traffic that goes to Mercy comes through Natoma Manors and Bay Heights, where City ofMiami Page 226 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 my eight -year -old child tries to play in the street, but he can't many times because fraffic -- and Marc's seen it many times -- comes roaring right down Tigertail, right into our neighborhood and takes two entrances -- or two exits out of our neighborhoods onto Bayshore to try to get away from the fraffic on Bayshore. Those condominium units that are huge are not going to bring significant additional traffic to Bayshore or the neighborhood, so as a voter, I strongly recommend you to consider my interest and the interest of my neighbors who have expressed the same thing I have, and that is to vote yes in favor of this project at Mercy. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Applause. Marci Weber: Hi. Marci Weber, 2525 Swanson. I live in the Grove. I'm also vice president of my homeowners association, but I'm here just speaking on my own behalf. Everyone keeps talking about the 300 units and how it's not really going to have a big impact, butt have to tell you, the pictures I've seen and the Lego demonstration kind of says it all, and I also agree with Ms. Burton [sic]. The structure is just magnificent. It's beautiful, and it would be welcome in Brickell. However, in Coconut Grove, can't we kind of get together because, obviously, Mercy Hospital needs help. There -- I disagree with Mr. Winton. I think if -- they should be a world -class hospital. Why not? That would bring people to Coconut Grove and put them in the Ritz Carlton and put them in our hotels because we'll have a great, incredible hospital, so I believe that we should look to a way to work with Mr. Perez, and maybe Mr. Perez can build a wing called the Perez Wing. Why not do that? What better way can you Donald Trumpif [sic] yourself than to build your own wing? So -- and that would really be great for tax purposes, and it would also make him as -- in our hearts forever. His name would be right there. I just don't see how building 50 stories, 40 stories, or double the -- Grove Isle is tall in our neighborhood. I just don't understand what doubling the size would really do, and as for traffic, fraffic is a problem on its own. Traffic is a problem now. Traffic's going to be a problem in the future, and the more development -- we're just in between. We're a part ofMiami. We're in between south and north. People come through everyday, and that is something we have to address. I don't support the project as it is, although I think it's beautiful. I would welcome other ideas, and obviously, I support Mercy. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Bruce Reep: My name is Bruce Reep, 3530 East Fairview Street. I got involved with this. I'm one of the troublemakers that got it started with the opposition. I have numerous signed things from my neighbors, which are giving me their two minutes. There're seven of them here, and I got five more people out here. This is for Fairview. They all could not stay, so I'm speaking on their behalf. I'll fry to make it as quick as possible, but I've got over 22 minutes, butl won't take that long. Everybody else got their two minutes. Would you please raise your hands, the people that offer me --? Jeff and the other gentleman with the hat. OK, plus -- Ms. Burns: Excuse me. The names given to me were Gus Andy, Fotini Andy -- Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Mr. Reep: Yes, they're here. Ms. Burns: -- Jeff Goldstein, Barbara Schindler -- Mr. Reep: Some of the people have had to leave. Ms. Burns: -- Sheila Goodman, and Lynn & Paul Steinfurth. City ofMiami Page 227 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Reep: All right, and I have two more people here that -- with the hat. You want their names? Margaret Lopez: Margaret Lopez. Ms. Burns: Those -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We need to move on because we -- Mr. Reep: OK Can I --? Let me just -- Chairman Gonzalez: It's -- Mr. Reep: -- get on with it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- quarter to 10 -- Mr. Reep: That's the best idea. OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and I said -- Mr. Reep: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- at 10 o'clock, we're going to adjourn. Mr. Reep: OK I'm here to break some myths that, unfortunately, that -- of what's being offered to our neighborhoods. First, I want to talk about the bay walk and what dangers this has. If you go over there right now and walk it, sure, you can't park your car there, butt walk it all the time. I've been in this neighborhood since I was seven years old, andl have fished offfrom there and been in that neighborhood, and you go there, and you don't have to worry about looking around the curve of a 20-foot high proposed wall, so basically, a bay walk, where you've got a big curve and 20 feet high, you can't see what's coming around the corner. The reason I have personal experience of the bay walk is I helped get the bay walk at Peacock. We fought hard for it. We said this is not a great idea to having it behind the mangroves. Give us lighting. Because it's back there, it is closed at sunset. You don't have to have it be closed over at -- to walk at Mercy right now. You can see all the way around the bend. Nobody's going to sneak up on you. They say it's a -- when you have a place, you cannot see, this bay walk will end up being closed. They'll say drug dealing or it's not safe, and in that high (UNINTELLIGIBLE) neighborhood will lose it. The Miami river walk is just another example of that, so all the gifts that are being given to us, the bay walk's a joke. Fifteen feet? That's ridiculous. They -- the City should get a little more than that. Now we're going to talk about the fraffic. There's already been shown in the drawings for right lane turns, basically making Bayshore into right turn at 17th, later at 22nd, and all the way to Aviation, right-hand turn lanes, basically making Bayshore into a three -lane road. It is a historically designated highway. You can't do it, but they're going to do it anyway. They're going to take the front yards, and they're going to start making right-hand turn lanes. After that, we've got -- when we finally get too much fraffic -- and I'm going to show you how you're going to get the too much traffic with condominiums -- everybody says that they don't cause traffic. I've been here since I was seven years old. I'm telling you, there were nothing but beautiful mansions. I have nothing but condos in my neighborhood, but this is outrageous, this size. You're going to lose your jogging path and your bicycle path. You almost kill them now when they ride by you. Bless their hearts. They take their lives in their hands when they ride our bicycle paths. Coconut Grove's character is based on a jogging path and a bicycle path. OK. I just want -- four of the things that were being given to us. Far as the myths of condominiums not causing traffic. Mercy received this property fifty -some -- six years ago and it was to be the benefit of the community. For over 50 years, they have saved on the backs of us taxpayers in City ofMiami Page 228 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Coconut Grove and the Miami area probably 20 million in taxes. They got free roads, free sewers, free libraries, free police, free fire, free museums, free parks. They enjoyed them too. We all paid for it. That's fine. I'm glad to give it. They're a nonprofit and they do wonderful things. I think it's great, but what they were supposed to give back to us is they were supposed to keep a hospital up to par for the rest of us. You've heard about the millions they made. Where did it go? The sister at the Planning Advisory Board admitted that they have missions all the way in Maine, in the Caroli -- up and down the coast. Where did the rest of the money go because it sure didn't all stay here? I don't know why they need this infusion so badly. I'm not saying the place doesn't need to be fixed up. If they so desperately need the 96 million, I would have like -- loved to have had the questions asked by you all. Where did the rest of the money go? The proponents have fried to scare Bay Heights and Natoma neighbors with gloom and doom of about -- and at those other zoning meetings and other meetings that they gave in the Grove, they're talking about the one million square foot of office buildings. There are other options for them there. They could put assisted living facility in. They could further and make this a wonderful place for a better hospital, and I'm fine with the hospital growing, and you'll find a lot of our neighborhoods think that, as our population grows, you all need to look into the future and make sure this land isn't all sold off and I'm going to tell you the financial pressures to sell this land off. R-4 zoning atMercy will break the G/I code, as we all understand it, to protect our neighborhoods. That was the intent and the promise given to our neighborhoods, and basically, what you're going to have here is the least abutting property in the future will be R-4. That's 150 units per acre. There's 74 acres there. Do the math. These 300 units, plus the 66 left, it's over 10,000 allowable units. What is before you tonight is not the whole project, it's R-4. That's what you're voting on, not the whole project, and if you give R-4 there, then the least abutting neighborhood is R-4, so when you talk about the -- that's not going to cause much traffic. I've watched these condos boom, boom, boom, go, and then the nice sister said, well, we don't have the intent at this time to sell any other land. You, the Commission, the residents, none of us, as Johnny Winton -- Commissioner Winton said, do not have control over their ability to sell to whomever they want, and they can sell at will, and she also stated, at the Planning Advisory meeting, the same sister, that there's no room. I'm going to show you how there is room. You've got three parking garages there right now. There are parking garages being built in front of the Four Ambassadors. They're nine and ten stories tall. Why so tall? So they can see over the top of the Four Ambassadors. You can C-4, with plastic explosives and tear down those three 5-story parking garages atMercy right now. In a week, it could be hauled away, and you can build three 10-story parking garages, just like in front of the Four Ambassadors. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I wouldn't be using that language here at City Hall. Mr. Reep: Oh, what, that they could build those? Vice Chairman Sanchez: About blowing up buildings. Mr. Reep: No, no. I'm just saying, that's how it works. Come on. I mean, I've been in the demo business for years. I remodel cruise ships, OK They can take those buildings away -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, it's been a long -- Mr. Reep: -- I -- OK, fine, fine. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- night, and I think -- Mr. Reep: Fine. OK, I got ---- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we need to laugh a little, you know? Mr. Reep: OK I agree. Thank you. My point is is that they could come down and you can City ofMiami Page 229 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 build bigger, tall ones on there and put another 30 stories on top of each of those, so the room is there. That football field -- now where do I get these numbers from? Ninety-six million for the 6.7 acres, a $5 million gift that's in the Miami magazine to Mercy. That's 101 million. We probably spend another three or four with all the expensive attorneys and personnel and pretty drawings, and with your neighborhoods, who know what they got? And that makes it very cloudy and suspect why you should -- when people take money, you should suspect why they're voting for it, but my bigger intent is to show you why and how it's going to happen. I've been here since I was a little boy. I've watched it, and here's how it's going to happen financially. The financial stress on waterfront property will put the pressures to sell that football field -- you'll move those 750 kids from LaSalle somewhere else. They'll move west because if you can make 1.3 to $1.5 billion, with a B, on just six acres, what's to make anybody on this Commission have the power to tell Mercy they can't sell it again and not do it again? It will happen. I'm going to tell you the reason why you have an obligation, as guardians to this city of ours, to not let it happen, and it's about people and it's about hospitals. It's about Key Biscayne and how far they are away from a hospital. Tens of thousands of people live on Key Biscayne. Tens of thousands of people live in the condominiums in Brickell. I'm going to give you the five neighborhoods that are very dependent on Mercy. Coconut Grove, the Roads section, Mr. Sanchez's area, Coral Way, and Silver Bluff. Those five areas, you won't get to a hospital in time to save your life. Of the five big municipality areas -- neighborhoods that I've just told you, think how many retirees are there. I'm over 50. You need to get to a hospital quick if you have a stroke, quick. You want to think you're going to make it to Jackson? You already heard horror stories about people having to go to Cedars. Yes, they need to keep up the place. Yes, they need the money, but there are other ways to do this. This is not the only way, and to get rid of the voodoo, gloom and doom that both the Natoma Manors and Bay Heights bought into, if you build these three -- and I don't care if you have a ten-year moratorium. It's only going to take a few minutes -- ten years is nothing. Basically, there's nothing to preclude Mercy from still selling off and still building the million square foot of medical office buildings that's going to cause all the traffic. Why? They got 66 more acres, so how does this -- is there some agreement? Ten years is nothing, so we can still get those big, huge buildings. You are the guardians. We don't have any other G/I hospital property around. You all need to be visionaries. You need to look into the future, for our kids and our grandkids. We elected you because we trusted you. That's why all of you are sitting up there. We elected you, each one of your neighborhoods, because they trusted you to be leaders and to plan for the future ofMiami, and I justgave you five huge neighborhoods, and one's its own little town, that are so dependent on this G/I property not to have the pressure of condominiums, waterfront. IfMercy can't do it themselves because they've mismanaged it, sell it to Baptist or sell it to somebody else, if they can't, OK. Applause. Mr. Reep: If not, do it right and do assisted living. You know why? Assisted housing living doesn't cause tons of people coming in. They don't own cars. All the maintenance people are right there. The maintenance people are right there. OK, the painters, the plumbers. If you have just the 300 units, or the 10,000 units that I'm telling you are going to happen, each one of those housewives is going to buy -- call somebody when the -- and this is where the numbers are wrong and everybody's wrong about the numbers of population -- of traffic, and they've been sold a bill of goods because they think they're only getting these 300 units now. This is a quick Band-Aid. Every one of them are going to have -- especially if they're $3 million properties -- they're going to have maids or housekeepers, cooks, flower deliveries, plumbers, appliance -- Chairman Gonzalez: You -- Mr. Reep: -- repairmen, exterminators. We -- Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me. You have -- City ofMiami Page 230 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Reep: I'll be real quick. Chairman Gonzalez: -- already used ten minutes. Mr. Reep: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: OK? Mr. Reep: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Believe it or not. Mr. Reep: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Ten minutes. Mr. Reep: Remodeling kitchens -- I'll be real quick -- painters, guest visitors, family and friends, tow trucks, landscaping services, pool services, cable TV (Television) installers, computer repair service, phone repair services, FP&L (Florida Power & Light) repair, food delivery -- I'm just saying, it goes on and on. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Reep: The point is -- you got my point. You are going to have -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. We -- Mr. Reep: -- tons of traffic with your next 10,000 units. Chairman Gonzalez: -- do. Thank you very much. Mr. Reep: Enjoy yourself with south Brickell -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Reep: -- being in the north Grove. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Wow. My God. Yes, sir. Joseph Ganguzza: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joe Ganguzza. I live at 3551 Vista Court. I'm a neighbor, and as Commissioner Winton said, a voter. I'm also a member of the City ofMiami Zoning Board. I was home watching this on TV while my wife was watching that silly Grey'sAnatomy. I thought I'd come down and share my thoughts, and I'd like to ask the City Attorney, do I have a problem discussing this as a citizen since we heard this matter? Ms. Chiaro: No. Mr. Ganguzza: OK. Since I sat up there -- and I've glazed over listening to these endless hearings. I'm going to be very brief. The Zoning Board heard this. The Zoning Board heard a lot of what you're hearing tonight, and we voted this application down, and really, it's all about keeping the Grove the Grove. You know, there's a lot of things that have been discussed about City ofMiami Page 231 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 what Mercy Hospital's going to do, you know, what it can do in the future. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. This is the last neighborhood in town where we've got sane levels of density, where we've got a quiet low-rise waterfront. Let's keep it that way. I think we owe that to the City ofMiami. I think everyone treasures the Grove, and you know, that's all I really want to say. Please vote to deny this application. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Monette O'Grady: Monette O'Grady -- Chairman Gonzalez: With these two speakers -- I'm closing the meeting down with these two speakers. Ms. O'Grady: --1660 South Bayshore Court. I live on Glencoe. I enter my community through Glencoe. A gentleman stood up and said that he formed an association called Glencoe Neighborhood Association, Inc. I know nothing about this. It was formed three days ago. I believe that you owe it to yourself to verify when somebody stands up and says that they form an association. This is a self-appointed entity that I know nothing about. I give you this document. This project is a win -win. There's $11.5 million of impact fees that will go with this project, 6.5 million to the road improvement of our neighborhood, 3 million to the parks, and 2 million to affordable housing. Maybe we should keep 3 million to the parks of Coconut Grove. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Bloch: IfI might respond, I think she was referring to me, Jason Bloch. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Bloch: That is correct. We started this organization recently, and the reason why is because we were told -- I was told -- Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Your name for the record, please. Mr. Bloch: Jason Bloch. I was told that The Related Group would not speak to me as an individual, and that the best thing to do -- that they would only speak with organizations, so I set up an organization, and several of my neighbors and our memberships were here. In fact, you heard several of them yield their time to me. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Bloch: Some of them are still here. This is a legitimate organization. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Bloch: They did not contact one of our members, any of the people that own houses on Glencoe Street. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You clarified the record. Yes, sir. Jorge Lopez: Yes. Mr. Chairman -- City ofMiami Page 232 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Good evening. Mr. Lopez: -- honorable members of the Commission, good evening. My name is Jorge Lopez. My family and I reside at 1889 South Bayshore Drive, and I'm delighted to be here today as a resident. All ofyou have heard that we're all voters, but more importantly, someone that's impacted on a daily basis. My family and I worship just nearby this property. We've attended this hospital for personal needs, and more importantly, my wife and I believe so much in this hospital that we're volunteering our time, as well as our resources to help it grow because it's a significant asset in our community. I'm here to also share with you how proud I am to be part of this community. We moved into the Grove about a year ago. We knew this project was coming. We knew we were coming to a street that was heavily traffic, and we knew that it would be challenges for a family of five young children to be able to grow in this community, but we believe that this community can thrive and we can thrive in it. This evening, Mr. Chairman, you've conducted a wonderful meeting and a sharing of ideas and a building of consensus around a project that we think is significant, not only as neighbors to this piece of property, but more importantly, as people who might use it, and I also invite my neighbors to, for once, speak in the City ofMiami as, yes, in my neighborhood, as opposed to, no, not in my neighborhood. Chairman Gonzalez: In my neighborhood. Mr. Lopez: We share, oftentimes, in the Grove, the privilege of having other areas represented by many ofyou, which do take on the burden of growth and development and affordable housing and impacts in this community -- Chairman Gonzalez: And hospitals and jails. Mr. Lopez: -- and hospitals and jails, and sometimes, it's incumbent upon us to say, yes, in our neighborhood, and yes, we'll deal with it, and more importantly, I invite all of my neighbors to join with me in looking at how we're going to take some of those resources that are coming as a result of this project and invest them wisely in this community. We talked about parks. We talked about the streets. We talked about other areas of impact, and I think that, constructively, we can channel all the energy. I mean, there were some very important arguments made here today. I -- they're way beyond my pay grade to understand, and I hope that you will make the right decision, but as a community, if we come together and work diligently, I think we can solve many of those challenges. Is it going to be a challenge? Yes, but I'm here to tell you I'm willing to burden it up and share the responsibility with all of you, as a resident, as a voter, and as a friend. Thank you very much and Godspeed. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you -- Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and with that, I'm closing the public hearing, and I'm bringing it back to the Commission. Who wants to speak on the item first? Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I'll -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- Sarnoff. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, I'd like to speak to it. First off to Coconut Grove, I congratulate you. What you did today was bring forth your side of the story. You did it eloquently, justly, and fairly to both sides, so I think you should be congratulated, and regardless of how this vote comes out, you should hold your heads up high and remember that we're a community and tomorrow we will be Coconut Grove, the Village, once again. I was also glad to see Commissioner Winton here, and I was glad to hear him speak. The one thing I learned today is City ofMiami Page 233 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 probably how to solve Jackson Memorial Hospital's financial crisis, and I guess they could sell a part of their property, and they would somehow generate income, and that's not what we're here to do today. We're not here to solve a financial crisis or to build anything for anyone else. We're here exclusively to look at a Major Use Special -- I'm sorry, not to look at a Major Use Special Permit, but to look at a change in the planning -- the comp plan of the City ofMiami and to look at whether G/I allows to R-4, and the reason we're not looking at a Major Use Special Permit is, very simply, it's not attached to this item, and it shouldn't be considered in this item, and we took a lot of testimony today that, quite frankly, while sexy and interesting, is not relevant to our decision, and whether there's going to be a Major Use Special Permit attached to this item, that can change with market forces. Projects can change, projects can go, and to me, this issue is about the G/I ordinance, and I am a very simple person in a lot of respects, and when I heard Jack Luft's interpretation of how this ordinance works and I drew the analogy of a pizza pie and I asked him if you take one slice of pizza, does that mean the entire slice reverts back? And he says, oh, no, no. It's got to be the entirety. You have to take the entire G/I ordinance. You have to take the entire plot of the G/I away, and I've read the ordinance time and time again, and I think it's very, very clear. I sort of watched it being developed by Ron Nelson. I watched it being developed by others in the Grove during the Grovenor project, and I was very glad to watch three of my Commissioners up on this screen very recently, and they seemed to be very confident in what they were doing. Now, Coconut Grove is a special place, and I actually looked up in the Code how has the City ofMiami ever addressed Coconut Grove? Andl was surprised to see not only did it address Coconut Grove, but it equally addressed the Mercy Hospital Overlay District, and here's what it said. Within Coconut Grove, bounded by a scenic highway ( South Bayshore Drive), as designated in the Miami Environmental Preservation Ordinance, on the northwest, a historic place (Vizcaya) listed in the National Register of Historic Places on the northeast, and surrounded on two sides by a predominantly single-family area is attractive land containing the Mercy Hospital complex. Because of its location and relationship to the surrounding area, it is of special and substantial public interest to apply special regulations on this fract of land and to ensure that the future development or redevelopment of this land will respect and enhance the general character of this area and to protect against inappropriate height, destruction of natural and manmade features or incongruent design. When we look at a comp plan change, we have to ask ourselves, what has changed? What conditions are new? And the question you ask yourself is, is the change to the value of waterfront land and in the market for luxury apartments, does that constitute changes on the grounds of our neighborhood? Because if that is true, I suggest to you we could change all the comp plans because all of our waterfront is more and more valuable. We have Vizcaya, LaSalle, Mercy Hospital -- when I listened to Jack Luft's explanation, I thought to myself what's next, LaSalle? If you allow this camel into the tent, the rest of the body will follow. How hard is it for anyone to imagine Jack Luft coming in here in six years and explaining to us the G/I ordinance and Lucia Dougherty, as I would joke, maybe with a little bit of a walker, coming in here and telling us exactly what can be done on the LaSalle High School side? Sometimes you defend your neighborhoods, and sometimes you defend them against encroachment, and this is a place you defend, and I know the other side of the story is going to be what if, what if, what if. Sometimes it takes courage, and sometimes you just need to say no, and you need to back up and preserve what you have and let the law take care of it because we're only here today for the law. We're not here to right somebody's red ink or black ink. We're not here to do anything other than establish a comp plan change for Coconut Grove and to decide whether the G/I ordinance, which was eloquently debated, veraciously thought of and very competently passed by a former Commissioner, I guess, on whose shoulders I now stand because we all stand on the shoulders of the people who have been here before us. Each one of us should have an obligation to be good stewards of our land, and ask yourself, are you being good stewards with your land? And that's why I ask my Commissioners to back me in a motion to deny this application because it's not right for this village. It's not right to do. There has been no justification. If you look at the law, if you look at the pretense and you look at some of the money that's been spent, the right thing to do is to deny the application. City ofMiami Page 234 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: I'll Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner -- Commissioner Regalado: -- second the motion for discussion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I have a couple -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: We (UNINTELLIGIBLE) discussion. Commissioner Regalado: Well, go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I just wanted to get some clarity. It's been definitely a long night. I'm sure my two -year -old son is wondering where his mommy is at this point, butt really wanted to just get some clarity on a couple of things. The vote has already been made, butt still wanted to at least understand it. This was kind of like deja vu for me because I had a pretty huge item like this before me, Commissioner Sarnoff, probably about four or five months ago, and you know, it's very difficult to sit in the audience and look at both groups trying to decide which one is the right decision for your neighborhood, and as you know, my neighborhoods within my district have so many challenges, so you know, you have to make some truly tough decisions, but I hate to see division take place within a community, period, and usually when big projects like this come, that's -- that usually happens. Hopefully, beyond today, you know, we can move beyond that. I needed some clarification on something. The Lego lady -- I don't know where the Lego lady went, but that was like a real neat presentation that she had there, and I wanted to ask the City Attorney --I understand, Commissioner Sarnoff, that we're not voting on the project, correct? Commissioner Sarnoff We're only deciding -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just the land change. Commissioner Sarnoff -- comp plan -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Just the land change. Commissioner Sarnoff -- change and R-4. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, so -- where's the Lego lady? I want the -- is she around? Unidentified Speaker: She left. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, she left. OK. The question I have for you, Maria, if -- OK, currently it's zoned G/I, right? Ms. Chiaro: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And they want R-4, right? City ofMiami Page 235 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Ms. Chiaro: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: R-4 allows them to go up to how much? Commissioner Sarnoff There's no height restriction. Ms. Chiaro: Well, it -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I'm sorry. Lour -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's 150 -- Ms. Chiaro: Lourdes Slazyk -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- units per acre. Ms. Chiaro: -- can answer the details of -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. OK, I'm sorry. I'm just -- Lourdes. Ms. Chiaro: -- what's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ms. Slazyk: And -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just -- because I like to be clear -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- when I'm -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- making a decision about something. What now? Ms. Slazyk: The R-4 allows 150 units per acre and a base FAR of 1.72. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Ms. Burns: Your name -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and -- Ms. Burns: -- for the record, please. Ms. Slazyk: Oh -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Your name for the record. Ms. Slazyk: -- Lourdes Slazyk. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. City ofMiami Page 236 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so what is the difference between ifMercy Hospital was doing it now -- I mean, have the -- took the existing land -- how tall would the building be? Ms. Slazyk: Same height. They're both -- both districts allow unlimited height. The difference is that the GI allows a whole host of additional uses that are not allowed in the R-4 district. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Ms. Slazyk: R-4 is -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so technically, they could -- Ms. Slazyk: -- high -density residential. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- put an office space, like you said earlier, right? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, they can. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so that means we'd probably have more people than we would have if we had residents, right, if they were the same height? Ms. Slazyk: The -- remember, we're not talking about a project, so, you know, you can -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. I'm saying if -- Ms. Slazyk: -- kind of forget for a moment 300 -- the 300 units. They'd be allowed 150 per -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- but I want to understand the difference because -- Ms. Slazyk: Oh, yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- if it's zoned -- if -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- currently, if-- they can do G/I, right? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: At a -- and you say it's unlimited heights -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- OK, which means it could be a real tall building, right? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So what is the difference? Ms. Slazyk: The difference is -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just -- I was just lost on -- Ms. Slazyk: -- that the G/I zoning would not allow a -- City ofMiami Page 237 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: For people to live there, right? Ms. Slazyk: -- the high -density residential project. That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But it still will allow for it to be the same height? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. They -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And part of the issue or concern was the -- how tall the buildings were. Ms. Slazyk: Correct, but even under the G/I zoning, if they were to come in with a building of that size, it would still need a Major Use Special Permit, so this Commission would see it, regardless of whether it was residential or institutional. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So even if the -- if -- even if we voted or we supported it happening tonight, not being G/I, but being R-4 -- because I just want to understand the difference between the two -- regardless, it would still have to come in front of the City Commission, correct, if -- whatever that project is would have to still come in front of the City Commission for Major Use Special Permit, right? Ms. Slazyk: If it crossed the thresholds of the Major Use, yes. If they kept it under the threshold of a Major Use, then no. It would only be a Class II Special Permit. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. All right. Then my other question is -- because somebody mentioned earlier about a covenant with the land, that this item could -- it was way earlier, somebody mentioned. Could this item be voted on with a covenant to the land? Ms. Slazyk: If the applicant were to proffer a covenant and the Commission accepted, then there -- then the covenant would govern, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Would that happen -- Ms. Chiaro: No. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- after the MUSP or before? Ms. Chiaro: It would -- a covenant goes with the MUSP. It would not go -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Ms. Slazyk: Right -- Ms. Chiaro: -- with any (INAUDIBLE). Ms. Slazyk: -- but there's no MUSP tonight. That's what I'm saying. If the MUSP -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, no. I'm just trying to understand. Ms. Slazyk: OK. All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's important when you vote on issues like this for you to understand, so -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. City ofMiami Page 238 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- you're -- because someone mentioned earlier in their presentation -- Ms. Slazyk: That they were proffering a covenant -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And that was for -- Ms. Slazyk: -- or it's with -- it's with the MUSP, but there's no MUSP tonight. Tonight it's just a land use -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know that. Ms. Slazyk: -- and zoning change. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I understand. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to be clear regarding the issue of the covenant of the land itself. I'm not necessarily talking about the building, so you're saying to me that you can't necessarily have a covenant to the land itself. It would have to be to the building or to the project, correct? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so that could not be a possible solution because -- Ms. Slazyk: I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm sorry. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I guess I'm just trying to understand -- someone made a presentation earlier mentioning something about a covenant to the land. They didn't say to the building or to the project, they said to the land -- Ms. Slazyk: It would run with the land, and -- yes -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- but that's only -- Ms. Slazyk: -- somebody could -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- if it's a -- only if this is a MUSP application that they were coming in front of us for. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But it's not. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know that. Ms. Slazyk: The -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know it ain't, but I'm just trying to make sure I understand. I'm glad you understand. Now I want to make sure I understand. I'm sorry. Ms. Slazyk: Well, this Commission sees zoning changes, like some that were earlier this evening, where an applicant can proffer a covenant along with a zoning change, so even in the absence of a MUSP, you could consider a voluntarily proffered covenant, but I think the one that was being City ofMiami Page 239 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 talked about earlier runs -- would go with the MUSP -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- and so this -- it's a little different, but yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I guess that was -- I needed to get some clear understanding, you know. Someone made mention to me -- I'm just going to tell you, frankly -- made mention earlier about -- I don't know who it was in the audience -- how they were happy to see, you know, us come to a positive resolution in my district for a project that was presented earlier in Overtown, and how originally I had voted to deny the project and was able to later sit down and talk and pull the people from the community together to come up with a project that made sense, and again, it's not always easy, but sometimes there are, you know, possible solutions to what may seem to be big problems at this point, and when I start like -- I asked for -- and I don't know if-- I asked for Ana to give me -- because, again, what I -- what we passed earlier in Overtown does nowhere compare to, honestly, what's, you know, going to be accomplished from this particular project. It was, you know, 2.6 for impact fees; 1.1 for, you know -- what is this? I can't -- you write in Chinese. What is this word? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Millions, ten million. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ten million. Commissioner Spence-Jones:--1.14. What does this say? Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Planning Director): Other fees. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Other fees for parks, I guess, and 1.6 for affordable housing. I mean, it seemed like the community was getting a lot out of it, so I -- I mean, and then the hospital. I mean, we all know that a hospital needs a lot of support, so I just -- I'm actually -- I'm not really -- I -- Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, can I address the covenant issue? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Dougherty: We had proffered to our neighbors to have a covenant running with the land on this property that would limit it to 300 units and also to roll back the zoning to G/I so it doesn't become a precedent for the rest of the hospital campus -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK -- Ms. Dougherty: -- and that covenant is already -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and did they -- Ms. Dougherty: -- in place for Natoma and Bay Heights, but -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and they were not ha -- they didn't like the --? Ms. Dougherty: Natoma and Bay Heights agreed with us. They supported us. City ofMiami Page 240 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: But the other people didn't. Mr. Lukacs: You're -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Lukacs: -- correct, Commissioner. The -- well, according to this -- to the City Attorney, a covenant cannot be considered as a part -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Lukacs: -- of this application because it goes with the MUSP, so when you're dealing with a land use change decision, you cannot consider a proffer of -- that's not a solution that's on the table at this time. Ms. Dougherty: Well, that's -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- not true. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. What's your name again? I always see you in City Hall ev -- yeah. What's your name? Mr. Reep: Bruce Reep. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Bruce Reed [sicJ? Mr. Reep: Yeah, Reep. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I know -- and you kind of helped organize and make sure that all the neighbors can -- I just need to ask you just a very straight question because I know that you have to have -- Mr. Reep: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- a great heart, and I see that just by your passion in what you're trying to do for your community, and I'm sure the sister back there really -- the sister from Mercy, you know, knows that you definitely support what they're doing, but deep down inside, do you feel -- I'm just asking you a very straight question -- that there is any possible resolution that could be made between your group and the --? Mr. Reep: I could explain one -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean -- Mr. Reep: -- and we had discussed -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I'm -- I just -- Mr. Reep: -- it before. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- want to know, do you think -- City ofMiami Page 241 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Reep: Yeah, yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- that there is a possible resolution that could --? Mr. Reep: As far as R-4, understanding the Code -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Reep: -- as we understand it, the moment you getR-4, and this is what's before us tonight -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Reep: -- with R-4, you're setting a precedence for that land. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: OK, and I've watched it, like I said, since I was little, happening to all other things -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, right. Mr. Reep: -- the domino effect. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Reep: There is nothing to preclude them from getting it -- the R-4 for the next piece of land and a little piece of pie and a little piece of pie, as Mr. -- Commissioner Sarnoff was talking about. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Reep: Well, we had said to them, do R-3; talk to the neighborhoods; get a real park and downsize this thing -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: -- and, yeah, it means Mercy won't get their 98 million -- or the 96 million, but the point is, we're not here to discuss their redline. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, right. Mr. Reep: We're here to discuss R-4. That is what's before us tonight -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Reep: -- and so the point is, is if you get the R-4 here, you have just set the precedence for 74 acres. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, OK. Mr. Reep: OK, and the pressure will be that it will -- that's why R-4 -- you know, I said, listen, they've given a lot of variances for R-3s in my neighborhood -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: -- and you can negotiate and get good things for the community. A bay walk that's City ofMiami Page 242 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 got a 20-foot wall is not a good thing. It's only -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So you're not -- you are at least open -- Mr. Reep: Not to R-4, in -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. I'm just saying -- Mr. Reep: -- anyway, shape or form. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, and Lucia -- where's Lucia? Bill Thompson: May I speak to this matter for a minute? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Sure. Mr. Thompson: My name is Bill Thompson. I'm an executive vice president with The Related Group. We currently have in place, with Natoma and Bay Heights, a covenant that runs with the land that limits this to 300 units. Earlier today I sent to Ron Nelson a land covenant that we were willing to give within 1, 000 feet of the site, which would, again, limit us to 300 units, and we also are willing to -- that as soon as we hit CO (Certificate of Occupancy), we would revert the land back to G/I so that no -- so at some point in time, the land would all be G/I. The building would be built, and then we could not -- there would not be a proliferation ofR-4 down the bayside, which I know a lot of people had concerns about, and we're more than willing to do. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Can -- OK, 'cause I -- Mr. Reep: OK. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- wanted you to -- Mr. Reep: My response to that is the Legos. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: OK Let me explain to you what -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, let -- can I ask you a question? Mr. Reep: Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So your res -- definitely not a R-4, but you are open -- I know we're not supposed to be -- Mr. Reep: We have told them -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- negotiating with them, but -- Mr. Reep: -- numerous times that if they would downsize this thing and talk to us in a realistic way -- but if you looked at that Lego demonstration, there is no way that putting residential condominiums and the pressures of-- financially of what it will be on the abutting land -- they -- listen, when we talked earlier, I said get us a restrictive covenant from LaSalle High School, from the Archdiocese and from every bit of the 74 acres that it will never go condominium and, you know, the size -- restrictive covenants, and definitely, R-4 is never going to be acceptable to us -- City ofMiami Page 243 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: But -- Mr. Reep: -- and what I'm trying to say to you is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- listen, in -- no. Mr. Reep: -- it's out of the character for our neighborhood is -- everybody has said because of its size. Make it something that fits with everybody else. Vice Chairman Sanchez: In all fairness -- Mr. Reep: Yes, OK. That's the ask -- that's a question that's asked. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- let's not confuse the issue. Mr. Reep: OK, R-4. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We are right now discussing the -- Mr. Reep: R-4. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- land change. That's the only issue. Forget about a building or forget about anything else because they could come in front of us and we could deny it or whatever. The land change is the issues now that are being presented -- Mr. Reep: Not acceptable, R-4. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and we are -- Mr. Reep: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Exactly. Mr. Reep: I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We act like quasi-judicial judges, based on the arguments made by both sides. Now, when my time comes, I will make some of the arguments and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I'm -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- pinpoint some of the concerns that the attorneys made, and I will bring more clarity to the issue. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I'm just going to wrap up, so -- so I just wanted to hear from you personally and the group that you represent. The -- and I think that even the suggestions that you've made today, you know, just in these few seconds saying that you are open -- Mr. Reep: We always had been. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- or your group is open, and the issue -- Mr. Reep: They said R-4 or nothing to us. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, right, so R-4 was the issue, and R-3 could maybe, perhaps, be a possibility, and your iss -- I'm just frying -- City ofMiami Page 244 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Mr. Reep: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- to understand what -- Mr. Reep: It's obviously the size, and this -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Because I would like -- Mr. Reep: -- remark, I don't know how to say this in a polite way. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Reep: I'm going to fry -- word it so -- we're not going to let anybody else do it to you, but we're going to stick it to you, OK? Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: And that's basically how we feel about the size -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: -- the size of this thing. It is so massive. I -- you got the orange flyers that shows -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Mr. Reep: -- how little Mercy is, and the -- it's not just the height. It's -- they're three-story condominiums. You understand -- one unit -- the reason they can go 300 feet -- the reason they can get 3 million or $5 million for them is they're probably $6, 000 unit -- I mean, 6,000 square foot units. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Reep: They're three stories or they're massive in size. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, but let's just get back to the fact thatR-4 is the issue. You would be open to something that was less than that. Mr. Reep: We always had been. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, and that -- Mr. Reep: Never R-4. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- your suggestions of just making sure that everything else surrounding it, if there is something put in place so that you don't have to worry about this same fight two or three years from now. I'm just -- I'm asking a question because I think that, always, you can find good in both issues, and I would hate to see Mercy not get what it needs to have. You know, and clearly, we all know that that hospital, you know -- Mr. Reep: Needs help, yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- it needs help, so if there's a way to help both -- Mr. Reep: There is a way. City ofMiami Page 245 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Reep: There is other medical facility sort of things there. What was frying to express to you all, with all honesty, about you having to be visionaries and think out of the box into the future for our communities and I need the communities to -- who are so dependent that Mercy -- not necessarily Mercy the name, but that a hospital at this location is wonderful and successful, and cutting a piece of meat off yourself, or a leg, and an arm, and a toe at a time because you couldn't do it right the first 50 years, scary to us. Why -- I've been over there. I've been there for emergencies. I'm glad it's there, OK, butl will tell you, with all honesty, it needs work, but we're not supposed to bail it out that way. That's part of a business practice. That's a management situation. That's not what we sell off and -- at the expense of the rest of the neighbors, and here's the last big part that's real important when you're asking this question. You got the Melreese Golf Course and you got so many other GI properties in this town that if you break this Code now, are we going to see the hotels out on Melreese Golf Course? Because, hey, that's a residential neighborhood; Durham Park right next to it, so these sort of issues, in all of your zone -- areas -- or should a nice church in the West Grove say it's part of our mission, I've got an acre of land here with my parking lot. I'm going to put my tabernacle on the top, and I've got a 150 units of condos. Commissioner Spence -Jones: All right. I just wanted to get clarity. Thank you so much, so that I understood. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really want to congratulate both sides because, for more than five hours, we have been here with passion defending the issue, and it's an irony that, two days ago, we had an election in Miami -Dade County and only 14 percent of the voters decided to go to the polls, and yet, we see here a massive participation of the people, which shows that the most important thing for us is and should be what is next door, what is next to our daily routine and our quality of life. I'd like to say also that voted for Mercy Hospital emergency expansion when it came to the City Commission, and there were some people that sort of didn't want to, but it was something that was needed. I also voted for One Miami, a spectacular project of Mr. Perez in downtown, and of course, the new one next to the Miami Circle because I believe that, number one, he is one of the best developers in the nation, and number two, downtown is where the big buildings belong. However, I voted against some projects next to the Herald because of the view and because of every time we are getting less and less space to see through the water being Miami a city, which is in the water, and because we are on the water, we pay more insurance, but sometimes seems that we are not even able to see the water like the people in Miami Beach, that they cannot see the water anymore. I remember that, in the early '60s, I was a child and I attended LaSalle High. It was a school for every age. At that time, it was only boys, and the -- Our Lady of Charity wasn't even built and Mercy was there, and it had a spectacular view, and after lunch, we were given breaks to go see the waterfront, and you know, I -- sometimes I think if my granddaughter and my grandson will not be able to see the water, and I am really hurt because we need the development, but sometimes we fry to be very aggressive with the view that we have, and by the way, it's the only thing we have, so I seconded the motion because I think, number one, the area Commissioner should have the, at least, lead in these cases because the area Commissioner is the person that takes the brunt when the residents are upset with one of the decision, and number two, because I think that we need to separate good developers and the need of the healthcare industry from what we leave for the future, and these are two different issues, so I just hope to hear my colleagues and move on with the vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Vice Chairman Sanchez. City ofMiami Page 246 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, it certainly has been a long night, and I do want to take this opportunity to thank you for your patience, and once again, I do want to thank everyone who came out to address this important issue that will affect our entire city. I also want to say there is a person outside who asked me that they had e-mailed me some documents pertaining to this case, and I just want to bring out, for the record, that we are not allowed to e-mail back, pertaining to the Jennings Rule, and I just want to say that for the record. Now the only issue that's in front of us today is the land use, and all it does is it change high -density multifamily residence. That's the only issue that's relevant in front of us, not the building, not the Lego, not the pictures, and it's all based on the arguments that are presented to us by both sides that think did an excellent job in presenting their case. This ordinance that's in front of us is on first reading. By law, it has to come back again. Now I took a lot of notes on the arguments that were presented by the attorneys, and once again -- Is Mr. Lukacs here? Mr. Lukacs, please. Mr. Lukacs: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. We have to decide, at the end of the day, how we vote on this issues [sic] based on substantial competence [sic] evidence, as you stated, Counsel. I want to praise you for your eloquent presentation. I think that whoever's paying you should give you a bonus. You did a great job in making certain points, and above all, setting your record. There were some questions here that wrote down that, really, I think the Administration or the department head need to answer, and you stated in your summary, in the argument that you made, the proposed change does not meet the requirement in the Zoning Code. Very valid argument, and I think it's important that the Administration, in this case, Madam Director, you need to come up and say does it meet the requirements? Ms. Slazyk: And again, for the record, Lourdes Slazyk. Yes, the rec -- the proposal does meet the requirements of the Zoning Code for the zoning change. It complies with the size requirements for a zoning change in the City ofMiami. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Another important issue that you heard all the Commissioners addressing was the ordinance, known as the G/I ordinance. You stated, under this ordinance, when a developer seeks to change a property zoned G/I, it only allows it -- is for a less dense abutting zone, I --a zoning district. That was the argument you made. Based on that ordinance, could you clarify that? Is that accurate or inaccurate? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. No, no, that's not an accurate statement. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It is -- I'm sorry. It is or it's not? Ms. Slazyk: It's not an accurate statement. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's not an accurate -- Ms. Slazyk: It's not an accurate statement. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Could you state why it's not an accurate statement? Ms. Slazyk: OK. The -- what the G/I ordinance says, the intent of that G/I ordinance was for if a piece of property ceases to be used for government or institutional purposes, it should be rezoned, but what the ordinance says is, in the absence of a rezoning, if a developer chooses to keep it G/I and develop it, that's when he becomes limited to the less intense abutting district, and this came out of the Grovenor in that the developer of the Grovenor chose not to rezone that property. Once the Naval Reserve ceased to own it, the property should have been rezoned to SD-17. What Grovenor did was choose to develop it under G/I, and that's why they were able to do a bigger building than anything else on Bayshore Drive. What this ordinance does is it says City ofMiami Page 247 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 that when you choose to develop under G/I, and it's not a government or institutional use, we're not going to let you do it as under the G/I. We're going to restrict you to what your least intense abutting disfrict is. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So, in other words, ifI buy the G/I property and I don't rezone -- Ms. Slazyk: Then you're -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it automatically goes -- Ms. Slazyk: -- automatically -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to the butting [sic] -- Slazyk: -- we will apply the zoning to the least abutting -- least intense abutting disfrict to your property, but what you should do is rezone it because -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and that -- Ms. Slazyk: -- it's not appropriate for a development that is not government or institutional to be developed on government and institutional zoned land, and that's what happened with the Grovenor. That's why that ordinance was written the way it was written. It says that what you should do is rezone it, and ifyou don't, we're going to limit you to least intense abutting district. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, and on another issue that was brought forth -- I don't recall who put out the argument. I did hear that it did -- the argument was, does this constitute [sic] spot zoning? Ms. Slazyk: No, it does not. It meets the size requirements of Section 22 --Article 22, Section 2214 of the Code says that in order to apply for a change of zoning on a piece of property, you have to meet one of three criteria. It either has to be 40,000 square feet in size, it has to have 200 linear feet of street frontage, or it has to be an extension of an existing classification. This one meets the 40,000 square foot size. It's over six acres. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Also, arguments were made that the Comprehensive Plan -- in other words, the proposed change does not conform with the adopted MCN (Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood) Plan -- Slazyk: Right. The -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, but I believe is what it's called. Ms. Slazyk: Right. We believe it does. We conducted a concurrency analysis. It was -- it came out that it was consistent, and you also have to remember that the City ofMiami is designated as an urban infill area, and this sort of infill-type development is consistent with an urban infill designation, so it does comply. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just wanted to bring those arguments out because I felt they were valid. They pertained to the arguments that you were making for your point because I could see that this, no matter what, is going to end up in court. Any time you see a couple of court reporters here, you know this is not going to end here, and of course, everybody's entitled to that due process. The other issue that I need someone to opine on, and I think, at the beginning of the meeting, we discussed that Mercy Hospital is relevant. It is relevant because it affects our entire city, and I just want to make sure that I'm -- the questions that I ask, I have someone who City ofMiami Page 248 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 can answer those questions, and I think that you may be the gentleman who could answer my questions. Could you please step up and state your name for the record? John Matuska: My name is John Matuska. I live at 178 Shore Drive South, Miami. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Pertaining to Mercy Hospital, how would this deal benefit your facility? Mr. Matuska: Well, most of our buildings were built between 1950 and 1977, and over 80 percent of the square footage is now over 30 years old, and those facilities need to be replaced, and this would give us the capital to do that. For example, you know, we're building a new emergency room. Our emergency room was built back in the late '70s. It was built for, approximately, 15,000 visits a year. It's 9, 700 square feet. We now treat 32,000 people a year, and so we're building a new facility that's 27,000 square feet. That's a $25 million project that benefits the community. As you well know, emergency rooms in the community are overloaded, and many times, you heard tonight, they're on divert. Ambulances, you know, squads are not sure where to go, where to take patients, and minutes are sometimes critical, you know, when you're treating patients, so this -- the proceeds of this will allow us to continue to refurbish the campus, particularly, the patient towers, to complete the emergency room construction, and to do -- keep up with new modern technology. An example, a CAT (Computed Axial Tomography) Scanner today costs about $1.2 million and is outdated in approximately a year because they come out with new and faster and better CAT Scanners that give doctors better tools, so, yes, it would definitely benefit Mercy Hospital. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Just about everyone that lives around here, including some of the homeowners association that came forth and gave testimony, they would attend Mercy Hospital if they had an emergency, or I would assume. The closest hospital to Mercy would be Jackson Hospital, correct? Mr. Matuska: No. It would probably be Cedars, Cedars or South Miami, depending upon which way you're going. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And how many people would you say, maybe from in between -- how many residents live in between Mercy and Cedars, across the street from Jackson? Mr. Matuska: You mean what is the population? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Where do we look? Population wise. Mr. Matuska: I don't know offhand, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. In other words, the argument that you're making is that increased services would result in -- greater revenue would result in better services -- Matuska: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for the hospital, and you've committed to that already? Mr. Matuska: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Thank you. Now there was another argument -- Yes? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I just would like to clarify something else that was said on the record regarding the comments by the Planning Department regarding the design review, which is the Urban Design Divison. We -- the comments have been consistent. They're not in front of you City ofMiami Page 249 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 because that would be part of the Major Use Special Permit, the comments regarding the massing, the bulk, and the -- which, I believe, Commissioner Sarnoff read it. I just wanted to clarify because in some of the arguments that were made, the -- it was presented as -- that the Planning Department had changed, and we have been consistent on the comments that we have been expressing. They're part of the Major Use Special Permit. They are not part of the zoning or the land use analysis. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: The -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well, wait, wait, wait, wait. I didn't misread what you -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. I did not say you misread. I believe you read -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. We shouldn't even be considering what the buildings -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Precisely -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- look like. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and I'm just taking the opportunity to clarify just the -- Commissioner Sarnoff And I was just taking the opportunity, when I addressed it, when somebody was telling me how the Urban Environment League, or somebody like that, had approved what these buildings look like because what I was saying was your own department didn't approve of them. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And what I was just clarifying, there was a statement made that the department had initially made the arguments, and then we had changed the recommendation, and I'm just clarifying for the record that it was not; that the comments from the Design Division had been consistent from the beginning. Chairman Gonzalez: That was going to be -- and that is -- was going to be one of my questions - Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and I'm sorry for interrupting you, but that was a concern that I had from the beginning, you know, why the Department denied the application first, and then they decide to approve it? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We didn't deny the application. On the land use and the zoning, we're recommending approval. The comments that were read -- part of the comments that were read on the record regarding design review, when a project comes in, they go first through design review, and it's just we're looking at the project, independent of the zoning and the land use, so the Urban Design Division reviews it and they comment on the architecture. Actually, as part of those comments, I believe it should be maybe on the second or third paragraph down, it always makes reference that the applicant needs to make sure that the zoning is correct, given that that's not what we're reviewing, the zoning, so it's design, it's architecture, those -- and the reviews come -- it depends on the project, but they do come often. Those comments were made and similar comments are part of our recommendation to you for -- in the Major Use application, so it was not that we denied and we approved. We approved the land use. We made City ofMiami Page 250 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 recommendations of approval for the zoning -- Chairman Gonzalez: But -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and the comments where we feel that we need to keep working with the architect is on the project itself on the architecture. Chairman Gonzalez: -- what I'm referring to is to this here that -- where it says the Planning Department feels that this project is out of scale with the area. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And that is, again, part of the architecture. On the Major Use Special Permit, on the comments that, again, they're not in front of you, we still address the issue that, on the scale and the area, but it has nothing to do with the zoning because you can have a zoning, yet, how do you develop the envelope of the building is what we are reviewing in the design comments that you have in front of you, which is independent. You can have a zoning. It's how is the envelope designed. That's what we were looking at, and that's the comments that the design review looks at, and on those comments, we have been consistent. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you done? Mr. Chair, are you --? Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have your issues been addressed? Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead, go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, getting back to my discussion on this item, I could see the concern that Commissioner Sarnoff has and some of the residents have, to be honest with you, and it is -- he used it as the theory of the pizza, as one being rezoned one, and you know, later on, what's to prevent others from happening, but if you look at it, I mean, I honestly don't ever see LaSalle selling their property, or Ermita De La Caridad selling their property. Unidentified Speaker: Didn't see Mercy selling property ten years ago. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's -- listen, that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to my opinion. At the end of the day, I have to make a decision here that people may support or not support, but I'm going to do what I think is best -- good for the entire community, and if you look at what's in front of us today, it's not a building. I mean, they could come back with a building, and we'll decide what we could put there, based on your input because you'll be back again. There's a second reading on this ordinance, and of course, when the development is put forth, you'll come back, and I'm sure the attorneys will be back on it to try to get approv -- whatever is put forth in front of this legislative body, but you know, I honestly feel that the argument that you made, Counsel, today were very good. However, you didn't provide any expert witnesses to back up, and that's -- those are the things that I have to take into concern as a judge, quasi judge hearing the arguments up here, so -- you know, I know there's a motion to deny. I think if the Chair wants to make some comments and -- Chairman Gonzalez: I do. Vice Chairman Sanchez: we'll see what happens. I honestly think that maybe, you know, if it's not approved or it's approved, I think that maybe you've lost the battle but not the war on the issue, and I think that the process is there to fry to resolve the issue as we move forward. It's a first reading, and as --then at the end -- look, at the end of the day, you know, people are going to use that hospital are the people from Coconut Grove, Little Havana, and you know what? They're going to need those facilities. As we get older, we're going to need those facilities. My City ofMiami Page 251 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 kids were all born there. My dad died in that hospital, all right. And when they told -- they were going to take him to Jackson, the guy said, we'll never make it to Jackson, won't make it there, but we're not going to get on that issue, but you know what? I hope that the day never comes -- and listen to me very carefully -- that you are in a situation that you have to go out to that hospital and you regret, you regret that you did not support an issue that was going to make that a world -class facility for people to have good healthcare and adequate healthcare. That's just my opinion, and we might disagree on the issue, and the beauty of it is that we're out here. We're all neighbors, and at the end of the day, we either go have a beer together, or we go somewhere together, or we might not see each other ever again, but it is the entire community -- and let me just say something for the record. I've been a Commissioner for nine years now, and let me just tell this Commission, we better break the mentality of thinking within the four walls of our districts because all we're doing is we're weakening a city when we do that. We have responsibilities to our districts and we have responsibility to this city. I didn't get into the benefits of the project, because if the project comes in front of me and I don't think it's a good project, I'll vote it down, but if it's a good project, is it going to benefit the community and everyone, then I would support it, so having made that argument -- Yes, sir. You're recognized. Commissioner Regalado: Just -- I don't know. I am very, very uncomfortable with what you just said because you're saying that someone who does not like or approve this project would probably regret when we need the hospital. We all need the hospital, but the healthcare problem in the United States is one that has to be addressed globally. Mercy Hospital is a not -for -profit corporation; does not, as Jackson, receive money from the half a penny that we pay for Jackson Memorial Hospital, like $78 million a year, and they do have problems, but the all -- they also has the option of expanding because bonding -- and this Commission has approved some of the bonds that Mercy Hospital has requested, so you just said it from the beginning. We're not dealing here with Mercy Hospital. If we want to discuss Mercy Hospital, I will really want to discuss Mercy Hospital because healthcare is the most serious crisis that we have in the United States at this moment, and although here we consider insurance and taxes, but healthcare, and the healthcare scenario for all us baby boomers and our children is something that we need to address, and if the City needs to do anything and everything to support Mercy and to support Coral Gables Hospital, which is a stone throw from the City ofMiami or Cedars or help with the Jackson Memorial Hospital, we should do it, but to condition the support of one project because the hospital is going to get money, I think it's unfair to the people who are here only for the change of zoning, and who -- we all love Mercy Hospital and this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: -- is not the issue that we are discussing, and by the way, yes, LaSalle could sell, and yes, the Archdiocese ofMiami could sell Archbishop Carroll -- Monsignor Coleman Carroll building, which is called Carroll Manor because that is a building that is more than 35 years old, like the UTD (United Teachers of Dade) building that they want to run down in Brickell so the union can sell. I will tell you that the next thing to be sold will be Carroll Manors, God willing the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But --- Commissioner Regalado: -- church will diminish, but because you said they're not going to sell LaSalle, they're not going to sell Carroll Manor, yes, that's the possibility because -- Chairman Gonzalez: Anything is -- Commissioner Regalado: -- the inventory of the church is there, and so I'm here just for the change of zoning, but if we want to discuss healthcare -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No -- City ofMiami Page 252 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: No, no. Commissioner Regalado: -- I am willing to do it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but Mercy Hospital owns the property. They could sell it, and the bottom line, they could sell it to a developer or they could sell it to the Seminoles Hard Rock, or they could sell it to anybody else, and you're still going to be here -- Commissioner Sarnoff No, you won't. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- with the same issues. Well, I disagree with you on that issue -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so let's -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- vote on the issue. Chairman Gonzalez: I do have some questions. You know, it was said here early that there were some intimidating tactics about Mercy being -- building an office building and trying to pressure the Commission to vote against the project or in favor of the project. Well, you know, I have seen many, many times here -- people here using intimidating tactics, and one that don't really appreciate is when we are told, or at least when I'm told that might be violating a law. That don't really appreciate if it's not true. Is there any truth to the fact that if we vote in favor of this application, we are violating the law? Ms. Chiaro: No, sir. It was it's presented to you to exercise your discretion as the testimony -- it wouldn't be on your agenda. Chairman Gonzalez: So we won't be -- Ms. Chiaro: You couldn't vote on it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- violating any laws? You are my attorney. You're responsible for the advice that you're giving me because I have heard attorneys here saying thatl might be violating the law, so I want to be clear. I'm not violating any law. Ms. Chiaro: An approval on this project would not be violating the law. Disapproving this project would not be violating this -- the law. Chairman Gonzalez: Another question that had was the G/I ordinance had me all confused at one point. I'm glad that you clarify it, and let me tell you, I have to also congratulate everyone that has been here today on both sides, and I really want to thank you for your corporation with myself that have to run this meeting and keep control of the meeting and making sure that everybody has an opportunity to talk on the issue and -- so I want to thank you. Representing the disfrict that represent -- and you know, there is a saying that, "Not in my Backyard," but representing the disfrict that represent -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You should write a book about that. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and I should write a book about that, OK -- every single jail, every single jail is in my district. Every single drug rehab program is in my disfrict; three hospitals -- City ofMiami Page 253 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Courthouse. Chairman Gonzalez: -- courthouse, Dade County jail. Every prisoner that is captured in the entire county is taken to my district, and once they are released, they are released in my district, OK, and everybody has been happy about it because, you know, it's not in my neighborhood; it's in Allapattah, so you know, Allapattah. People have been crying in here a special interest, special interest, people with a lot of money, with a lot of money, and I don't have anything against people with money. Mr. Perez, I don't have -- I don't take exception because you have money, you know. I hope that have the money that you have because some people tend to, you know, hate people that have money. I don't know why. I mean, you know, I don't have anything against anybody that is a millionaire. I hope I'll be one one day. That's why I play the Lotto every Saturday, to see ifI -- well, maybe one day, you know -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You'll be buying the land. Chairman Gonzalez: If you don't see me here one day, you know, after the Lotto, say Angel is in Tallahassee collecting money, but you know, we had the issue of Camillus House for more than 20 years. Mariano said it, more than 20 years. I opposed Camillus House right from the beginning, and we look at different options. We look at Little Havana option. We look at Commissioner Regalado's OP -- Commissioner Regalado don't mention Camillus House in his disfrict because there is no way. They will hang him. They will hang him in Coral Way, OK. Coconut Grove, Upper Eastside, downtown, time out. Time out, not here, you know, trust. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So D -- Disfrict 5 got -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: --got it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so where did it ended? Where was it proposed all the time? Disfrict 5 and District 1. It was -- you know, it was the right selection. I mean, the right place to be. They have all the jails. They have all the hospitals. They have all the drug addict programs. They have, you know, everything. Why not send Camillus House? It's the normal -- it's the logical place to go, OK. Well, you know what? Commissioner Spence -Jones and I were conscious enough to say, you know what? This problem needs to be solved for the entire -- for the benefit of the entire City ofMiami, and if we need to take it, we're going to take it with conditions, with conditions; proper location, proper building, the right amount of people, right amount of -- right quality of services, and so on and so on and so on, and you know what? We voted in favor of it, and we took it because it's in her disfrict and my disfrict. It's in the borderline, so you know, so I have different sentiments in reference to this. I have heard -- people spoke here today that does a lot of beautiful things for this community, people that -- doctors that give their time to cure other people that don't have resources. I have been working with the League Against Cancer for many, many years, and many of these doctors that work at Mercy Hospital, I have seen them work at the League Against Cancer and dedicating one day a week of their time, an entire day and night to help people with -- without resources, and they don't look at the race. They don't look at the ethnicity. They don't look -- no. They look at the human being that needs help and doesn't have resources to pay medical care, OK I have had to go to Mercy Hospital in three or four occasions, in two occasions lately, so I know the services that they provide, and I know the problems that they have at the hospital. I was a very good friend ofManolo Reyes, who used to work at the hospital for many, many years, and we talk a lot about the needs of the hospital and the problems that the hospital had. I also understand the concern of the residents and the citizens, but we had residents here on both sides, you know, and no matter what do, no matter how I vote, one side is going to be mad at me. That's the way it is. I wish I had a way to make everybody happy, but -- that's something that won't be able to do. The -- I think it was the -- a City ofMiami Page 254 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 gentleman from Related Group that said that they had proffer to revert the property to G/I after the building is built. Well, I believe that is the solution for the concern, and I understand the concern that this been given away piece by piece; now one piece, later another piece, and later another piece, and later another piece, and then the entire property goes away to condominiums. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Becomes a G/I pizza. Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Becomes a G/I pizza. Commissioner Sarnoff There you go. Chairman Gonzalez: The pizza, the pizza deal. Commissioner Sarnoff Sicilian or regular? Chairman Gonzalez: So you know, I think that's a solution. I really believe that that's a solution. If -- you know, if there is a way that the property can revert back to G/I once the project is done, that will solve the concerns of the residents, if the concern is all the property being sold to condominiums. Now it now -- if we're going to go into the height of the prop -- of the buildings and then we're talking two different issues, but that's not what we're discussing here today, right? So was that what you proffer? Ms. Dougherty: We did. We proffered a covenant to restrict the number of units to 300 and to revert -- to apply to revert back to G/I after each CO for each of the buildings, and we would proffer that to the City as well as our neighbors. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Goggins: May -- ifI could speak to this issue, Mr. Chair. The proffer would -- as Ms. Dougherty says, the property would revert back to G/I, but at that point, we would be exactly where we are today. We would have -- the next property would be surrounded by G/I, and they would say, all we need is a simple variance to go to R-4; we'll build up again, and then we'll revert back to G/I, and then -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but you know what? Mr. Goggins: -- the next parcel. Chairman Gonzalez: They're talking about these buildings taking ten years to be built, right? Mr. Goggins: Ten years is -- Chairman Gonzalez: Did I hear correctly? Mr. Goggins: -- a blink of an eye when it comes to the development of a neighborhood. Chairman Gonzalez: But that's crossing the bridge before I've gotten to the bridge, you know. I mean -- well, you know, you have answered my concern, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Vote. Chairman Gonzalez: -- it's time to fish or cut bait -- City ofMiami Page 255 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Or cut bait, as J. L. Plummer used to say. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so why don't you do a roll call. We have a motion -- pardon me? Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's to deny. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion to deny. Commissioner Regalado: You need to read the ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff No. It's a -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, not if it's -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- motion to deny. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to deny. Ms. Chiaro: On a motion to deny -- Commissioner Regalado: Oh, it's a motion to deny. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion to deny. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's a motion to deny, so you don't read the ordinance -- Commissioner Regalado: OK, OK, OK Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so roll call. Commissioner Regalado: Roll call. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Ms. Burns: Roll call. Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Burns: Chairman Gonzalez? City ofMiami Page 256 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: No. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Chairman Gonzalez: No clapping, no clapping -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Chairman Gonzalez: -- no clapping, no clapping, please. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I will make a motion to approve. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. There's a motion to approve. Is there a second? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: And there is a second. Roll call. Ms. Chiaro: I need to read the ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Chiaro: This is item 37. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Ms. Burns: Roll call. Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff No. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Burns: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: I will vote yes, but I will -- would like to proffer an amendment to the motion, and that is to accept the proffer to revert the property to GI. Commissioner Sarnoff Can't do -- City ofMiami Page 257 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but that would come later in the MUSP, right -- or the -- that would come later? Commissioner Sarnoff Can't do it. Ms. Chiaro: It come -- it comes with the MUSP on second reading. Chairman Gonzalez: On second reading with the MUSP? OK. Well, then, yes. Ms. Burns: The ordinance is passed -- Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And listen, this is just the land change. This is not the project itself so people need to understand that on first reading. PZ.38 06-01060zc ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 44, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "G/I" GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL TO "R-4" MULTIFAMILY HIGH -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 06-01 060zc Analysis.pdf 06-01 060zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-01 060zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01 060zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01 060zc ZB Fact Sheet 07-1 0-06.pdf 06-01 060zc ZB Fact Sheet 09-11-06.pdf 06-01 060zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-01060zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010601u & 06-01060zc CC Exhibit A.pdf 06-01060zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3663 S Miami Avenue [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Iris V. Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of TRG MH Venture, Ltd., Contract Purchaser, and Mercy Hospital, Inc., Owner FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on September 11, 2006 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File ID 06-010601u. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-4 Multifamily High -Density Residential for the proposed 300 Grove Bay Residences Major Use Special Permit. City ofMiami Page 258 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Motion by Commissioner Spence -Jones, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, we have item 30 -- Unidentified Speaker: 38. Ms. Chiaro: -- 38. Commissioner Regalado: 38. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh. Ms. Chiaro: 38. Unidentified Speaker: Item 38. You didn't vote on 38. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: We're not done. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Item 38. 38 -- Ms. Chiaro: Motion. Chairman Gonzalez: it's an ordinance. Ms. Chiaro: You need a motion -- Chairman Gonzalez: Read the ordinance, please. Ms. Chiaro: You have no motion or second. Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Ms. Chiaro: We need a motion and a second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion on 38 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Read the ordinance, please. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on the item? Counsel, do you want the -- what you proffer on the -- on item 37 to be also on the record of 38 -- John Lukacs: I would reit -- City ofMiami Page 259 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: -- your objections? Mr. Lukacs: Yes, I would. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Well take your objections as part of the record on 38. Anyone else from the public? Jason Bloch: Yes, Commissioner. Jason Bloch. Also, we'd like to adopt our arguments and the other arguments made by the other opponents for the previous item. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Bloch: Jason Bloch. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Roll call, please. Roll call. Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff No. Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Burns: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Burns: The ordinance has passed on first reading, 3/2. Chairman Gonzalez: Motion to adjourn. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Always in order. Unidentified Speaker: Second. NA.1 07-00140 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTYWIDE REFERENDUM IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY IN REFERENCE TO SLOT MACHINES. DISCUSSED Commissioner Regalado: There is a 90 percent probability that, in November, there will be a countywide referendum regarding pari-mutuels and slot machines in Miami -Dade County. The County will place that in the ballot, and it so happen that of the three sites that will be allowed to have a slot machines, like Broward is having now, two of the three sites are located within the City ofMiami Page 260 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 City ofMiami, Miami Jai Alai and Flagler Dog Track. The state statute allows the county and the cities to enter into agreement with those entities for different taxes or license, and I will tell you something. If this item comes back to the voters in Miami -Dade County -- last time it did; it lost for 3,000 votes. This time the polls are showing that people would approve. The one in Broward County, next to Miami -Dade County, in 90 days of-- in 30 days of operation, had generated $3.5 million in taxes to the state of Florida, besides what they have generated for the local governments. If we start working now, number one, working on the numbers, if the voters were to pass this referendum in November, the City ofMiami will have a lot of saying on the Flagler Dog Track and Miami Jai -Alai income, and we could just think on ways of using that money for special projects, social services, either not going into the general fund. I will tell you that this portability issue and this reduction in taxes is something that is going to happen. Commissioner Sarnoff is right, it is going to happen; you just have to look at the polls and the people, and the way that the people will be voting and had voted in the past. NA.2 07-00144 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A HOMEOWNERSHIP ZONE IN DISTRICT 1. DISCUSSED Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Now we're going to go into public hearings. We were supposed to start at 10:30 in the morning. It's 11:30 in the morning, and before we go into public hearings and Community Development, Barbara, I have a question. The homeownership zone in my district, when is that going to happen? Is that ever going to happen, or it's going to happen after I retire? Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): We had scheduled to start it this year, so I will start working -- Chairman Gonzalez: I hope so, because -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- District 5 already had theirs, and I wonder how many millions of dollars did they get? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Well, when District 5 created the Model City Homeownership Zone, they were awarded $12 million. Chairman Gonzalez: Twelve million dollars. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Out of which -- as we all know, it didn't work, and all of that money was reallocated to other projects. There was a disallowed cost of $4.1 million. Out of which, we have reimbursed U.S. HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development) approximately $2 million; we owe another $2 million that we're in the process of doing a payment plan with them, and basically, right now the Liberty City Trust do not receive any funding from Community Development. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. No, I don't have a problem with that. I just want to know because, you know, I've been waiting and waiting silent -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- quiet to see where -- you know, when they were going to bury me, but -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Last year was -- City ofMiami Page 261 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: -- I mean, you know. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- the last year of Liberty -- of the Little Havana Homeownership Zone -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- so this year is District 1. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. When did Little Havana had theirs? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Liberty -- Chairman Gonzalez: Two years ago. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- Little -- Chairman Gonzalez: Two? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- Havana Homeownership Zone was funded for the last five years. The commitment of this City Commission was that each homeownership zone would receive $1.5 million -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Per year. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- for five years -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- for a total of 7.5 years -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: -- so the last one was Little Havana Homeownership, which received their last funding last year. Chairman Gonzalez: So this year is -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: This year is District 1. Chairman Gonzalez: -- it will be the first year of funding for District 1 ? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: For District 1. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- ifI could just add real fast on the issue of the Model City Trust. As you know, I inherited that issue -- Chairman Gonzalez: I know, I know. City ofMiami Page 262 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so I just want to -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- make sure that the folks watching Channel 77 and the folks that are sitting in this audience today that they're very clear that -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I did not create that issue; I inherited that issue, and I can honestly say our new director, with the help of Community Development and the Manager's office, we're well on our way with getting things done within my district, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues to make sure that we put the right resources in -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- District 5 to make sure that we get houses built, and in this last year, we have built a lot of houses, so -- Chairman Gonzalez: Definitely, definitely. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I really appreciate your support. Chairman Gonzalez: And I have always been one of the biggest supporters of District 5, as far as housing is concerned. NA.3 07-00133 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE LACK OF HOUSING IN THE OVERTOWN COMMUNITY, AND CRA-RELATED ISSUES REGARDING THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARKING, AND OTHER CRA-RELATED ISSUES. DISCUSSED Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you. As a matter of fact, I have been very upset, and I'm still very upset, to see that we have the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) in Overtown, and years have gone by and years have gone by and we haven't built one single home for the people of Overtown, you know. A lot of parties, a lot of you know, roses and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Parking lots. Chairman Gonzalez: -- but factual, things that you can touch, you can say, you know -- people that can move into a home, nothing of that, and I'm -- let me tell you, you know, I'm very upset about it, and I don't know if you notice thatl have missed a few meetings, and the reason is that, you know, to continue going to those meetings to have no results, no real results for the people of Overtown, I'd rather not go to the meeting. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, and I just want to say to you, adding on that again, the CRA is something that inherited. It was not something -- Chairman Gonzalez: You know, I mean -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- that everything -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- I was hoping -- when I became Commissioner and I became a member of the CRA board, I was hoping that would see new sidewalks, new streets, infrastructure City ofMiami Page 263 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 improvement, drainage projects, housing much needed in that disfrict, housing, affordable housing, you know, all of this that you're trying to do now, rehab all of these buildings. This should have been done a long time ago because the money's there, but we're using the money for many other things. Now I hear about building a tunnel and about building a streetcar and about building this and building a stadium and -- listen, you know. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: I'm not going to say what my position is, but what I'm saying now, I think you can understand that -- and you, Mr. Manager, are you listening to me? Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Are you listening to me about CRA -- Mr. Hernandez: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and a tunnel and a parking lot for the Performing Arts and a stadium, and you know. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, I'm -- Chairman Gonzalez: You know what we need to do? We need to rebuild Overtown, and once we have people living in Overtown that have decent housing and decent jobs and all of that, then we can build a tunnel so they can go under the tunnel in their new car and go to the port and, you know -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate you supporting my disfrict on that level because, again, I might have said to City staffers, to everybody that's been involved in this issue regarding Overtown, the three priorities that I have for -- as the chairperson of the CRA is housing, housing, housing -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- you know, and it's been very clear with the Administration there that before I could even think about anything else or even hear anything else, that we need to make sure that we deliver on the promises to the people that have been waiting for God knows how long, so I think that in this last six months, actually, since I've been the chairperson of that, the staff -- the new staff that we have over there, working along with CD (Community Development) and our City Manager, you will definitely see some progress take place, and you're right, those boarded up buildings, people need to be living in them. We need to be building new units, and that's what we're going to do, and I hope that I will continue to have your support, like I have it in Liberty City, and I hope that you continue to support me at the CRA meetings because I can only do it with the support of my colleagues. I cannot do it by myself and I welcome your support, your advice, your direction, your opinions. You know, that's what it's all about. I am not -- and I'll put it on the record, and I've been very clear -- I'm not in support of any stadiums, I'm not in support of any streetcars, or any of those things that are -- if that's going to come before what the people have been waiting for for a long time, so I know that this is an issue that was going to come up later on the agenda, but I just want to make sure that it's very clear that, from where I sit, I only support making sure that the people in Overtown get what they deserve to have first. Commissioner Regalado: I think we should invite -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. City ofMiami Page 264 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: -- the people to be at the next CRA meeting. In the agenda, we have the item placed by the chairperson regarding the announcement that it was made about the CRA and the stadium without the knowledge of the chairperson and the members of the CRA, so it's sort of a -- like a stealth project, but it would be very lively discussion, I imagine, because you know, CRA -- the Chairman is right; CRA has been a piggybank. Hey, let's build a tunnel, streetcar, performing art. I was hoping that the Chairman would have been there the day that we voted on the gold pavement for the block -- the super block in front of the Performing Arts that cost like several million dollars. With that money I would have done about 20 blocks of curbs and sidewalks in District 4, but you know -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- CRA is for redevelopment. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, you'll see a change. You -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- definitely will see a change. NA.4 07-00134 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE SCHEDULING OF A SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING FOR ZONING -RELATED ITEMS. DISCUSSED Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper, nothing official, that on February, we will have the issue of the Home Depot -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's what I'm being told, too. Commissioner Regalado: -- so if we have the Home Depot in February, there is going to be a lot of people. Chairman Gonzalez: But let me tell you. I'm also being told that Home Depot doesn't want to have a meeting, so I don't know who's pushing for the meeting. That's what I'm being told. Commissioner Regalado: Well, regardless, but if we have the meeting, there's going to be a lot of time that we have to spend. This is why I'm suggesting to you for you to pick up a day of the week, maybe next week or the other week, to do a special Zoning so we can get items done. I mean, I don't mind, for instance, like coming at 3 p.m. in the afternoon, staying 7 p.m. I don't know -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- and we get a lot of things out of the way, but it's up to -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- you. It's -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right now, as it is, we're going to have to schedule two special meetings; one meeting to clean up all the items that they have pending, and then another meeting for the Home Depot, if in fact, we're going to have a meeting on Home Depot, then we need -- then I suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Home Depot. I don't know how my colleagues -- City ofMiami Page 265 Printed on 2/12/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 25, 2007 if my colleagues agree with that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Fine. Commissioner Regalado: I don't have any problem. Chairman Gonzalez: -- but I think it would be crazy -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to have a 20 -- a 30-item agenda and then include Home Depot in there Commissioner Sarnoff No. I agree. Chairman Gonzalez: -- when we know it's going to be -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- another controversial item. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you know, and that's a tremendous injustice to the public that shows up -- Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for their items here, so I agree, and I'm available any time, as long as you're able to work it out as a Chair with the Commissioners, and we'll have special meetings for Planning and Zoning. I think that's a great idea. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. City ofMiami Page 266 Printed on 2/12/2007