The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 2007-03-27 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com IF Ali Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:00 PM SPECIAL 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 March 27, 2007 2:00 P.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Sarnoff, Vice -Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Spence -Jones On the 27th day ofMarch 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 special session. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Angel Gonzalez at 2:18 p.m., recessed at 10:46 p.m., reconvened at 11:23 p.m., and adjourned at 11:31 p.m. Note for the Record: Vice Chairman Sanchez entered the meeting at 2:19 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Pamela E. Burns, Assistant City Clerk Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the March 27, 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 David Sarnoff and me, Angel Gonzalez, Chairman. Also on the dais are Pete Hernandez, City Manager, Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney, and Priscilla A. Thompson, the City Clerk. The City Attorney will read the procedure to be followed during this meeting, and I'm glad that I -- according to fire regulations, we are not allowed to have anybody standing on the back of the chamber or in the aisles. Everyone needs to be seated, so I appreciate the fact that some of the people that were standing on the aisles have decided to move back to the lobby. They can see the meeting through TV (television) in the -- outside in the lobby. Mr. City Attorney. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, members of the public. Any person who is a lobbyist must register with the City Clerk before appearing in front of the City Commission. A copy of the Code section about lobbyist is available in the City Clerk's office. 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 www.miamigov.com. Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this agenda. All the 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 action. The Commission may override such veto by a four/fifth vote. What ensues, Mr. Chairman, briefly, is a summary of the resolution that's in effect regarding disclosure by applicants, so, basically, the sum and substance of that resolution is that any person or entity requesting approval, relief or other action from the City Commission concerning any issue shall disclose, in writing, at the commencement of the hearing, on the issue the following information. The City Clerk has forms available that need to be filled by those to whom this section applies. Whether -- and it must reflect the following four criteria: Whether any consideration has been provided or committed, directly or on its behalf to any entity or person for an agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested approval, relief or action; number two, disclose likewise to whom the consideration has been provided or committed; number three, the nature of the consideration, and lastly, a description of what is being requested in exchange for the consideration. The disclosure form, which is available from the City Clerk, must be read into the record by the requesting person or entity prior to submission to the City Clerk. Also, 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 Commission chambers. Please silence those now. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes unruly while City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 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 a Commissioner are allowed. No signs or placards are allowed in the chambers. Persons exiting the 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 that the item is heard, persons who will speak should approach the microphone and wait to be recognized. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. The meeting will end either at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10: 00 p.m. or at the conclusion of the agenda, whichever occurs first. We will now begin, and the items that are for consideration, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this afternoon at this specially called City Commission meeting are Planning and Zoning items, and with regard to the presentation of Planning and Zoning items, I remind everyone of the order which will be followed. Before any PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, momentarily, will be asking all those ofyou who are going to be speaking to raise -- to stand up and raise your right hand and offer the oath. Immediately after that, staff will go first, and they will briefly describe the nature of the request; give succinct history of the items in front of the Commission. After the staff makes that presentation, it becomes the petitioner's turn to present their request. The Chair will announce, briefly, and I will explain as a follow-up to the Chairman's announcement, issues of limitation on time that will be imposed on every speaker. Immediately after the petitioner has made their presentation, then it's open to members of the public. Members of the public may be organized groups being represented by counsel or it may be individual citizens. In either case, there will be time limitations imposed also on those who speak. Petitioner -- members of the public will, of course, be permitted to speak, and the Chair will announce the amount of time that will be allotted to each individual member of the public, and then the petitioner, as well as any member of the public making a presentation, may ask questions of staff or of each other, as the case may be, but those questions need to be addressed through the Chair. At the conclusion of everyone's having an opportunity to make their presentation, the petitioner will be permitted to make final comments. After the petitioner makes final comments, then the Chair takes -- closes the public input portion of the public hearing, takes the matter back to the dais, and then the Commission deliberates on the evidence and the testimony that they had -- they heard adduced. At that time, they will then -- after debating and deliberating, they may also choose, if they have any questions, to call on any member of staff or any speaker, to answer those questions, but keep in mind that that does not mean that the public input portion of the public hearing has not been closed. It would be at the discretion of the City Commission to allow anyone to speak after the public input portion of the hearing has been closed. The Commissioner will ultimately deliberate and make a decision, voting the items up or the items down, and that concludes, Mr. Chairman, the rules. It -- you need now to announce the time allotment that you would deem appropriate. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. I'm going to -- well, whatever time the attorneys for the developer is going to use is the same amount of time that I'm going to give the attorneys that were here at the first meeting representing the opposition. Also, attorneys that are representing entities or group, I will allow them five minutes, so I'm going to give both of you equal amount of time, and each person that wants to speak on the item, they will be allowed two minutes, per person. We have quite a bit of persons here today, not only inside the chamber, but also outside, and everyone, I'm sure, wants to speak on this item, so to make it a fair process and to allow everyone the opportunity to express themselves in reference to these issues, I want to give everyone the same opportunity, so are you ready? How much time do you think you're going to need? Lucia Dougherty: My presentation's probably going to be 15 minutes and our expert witnesses will be probably another 20, 25 minutes. City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Madam City Clerk, you ready to swear in the witness -- the parties? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, sir. If you're in the chambers or out and you plan on testifying in any of the matters before the Commission today, I need you to please stand so I can swear you in. I need you to raise your right hand, please. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. You may be seated. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 (Pursuant to Section 4(g)(5) of the charter of Miami, Florida, Item(s) vetoed by the Mayor shall be placed by the city clerk as the first substantive item(s) for the commission consideration.) NO MAYORAL VETOES Chairman Gonzalez: Let the record reflect that we haven't received any vetoes from the Mayor's office. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): That is correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Is that correct? Thank you. City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 PART B Chairman Gonzalez: All right, let's commence. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I think she was trying to, at least, get your attention on this before you start. I don't know if -- did you have a question for the Chairman? Lynn Lewis: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for the record -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: She just had a question. Ms. Lewis: -- Lynn Lewis, attorney for the Vizcayans, and a point of clarification, ifI could, please. I thought I understood you to say that the attorneys who were here at the first reading would be given the same amount of time as the applicant. We respectfully request that the Vizcayans, as an objector, be given the same amount of time as the applicants. Chairman Gonzalez: You will. Ms. Lewis: Thank you, sir. We have some procedural issues, which we would like to bring up now or later, at the will of the Commission. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): I suggest that you follow the order of hearings that has been established, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. John Lukacs: IfI may, with all due respect. My name is John Lukas. I'm an attorney, and I represent Grove Isle Association, Inc. Mr. City Attorney, I have some procedural matters that need to bring to the attention of the Commission and the audience, and I would like to address those. Motions in the nature of recusal, issues pertaining to potentially Jennings Rule violations that think need to be brought up now before we begin; an issue also as to the interpretation of the presiding officer code provision, which bears directly upon the ability of the presiding officer, with all due respect, Commissioner Gonzalez; the ability of that Commissioner to vote, to move, to second, and otherwise, debate an item. With your indulgence, I'd like to address those items, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Fernandez: It is up to the Chair. I don't see the need for you to entertain this speaker at this time. You have an order of protocol that you can follow, and at the appropriate time, all his objections will be in the record, as a matter of the record. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let's hear the petitioner, and then you'll have your -- equal amount of time, and then you can address -- Mr. Lukacs: Well, the equal amount of time that I'm going to ask for, Commissioner, with all due respect, is the amount of time that I'm going to be speaking to the merits of this matter, if in fact, it gets to the merits. The procedural matters that have to address, I would respectfully request that have additional time within which to address those. I don't want my client's rights to have the merits of this case heard prejudiced by the very important amount of time that I'll need to spend on these procedural matters -- City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Lukacs: -- which is the reason why I asked to be heard initially. Mr. Fernandez: Again, Mr. Chairman, you know, I don't read minds. I don't know the nature of his concerns, but procedurally, this item comes to you with a presumption that it's ready to be heard. It was heard already once on first reading; this is a second reading of the item, and you know, the -- again, the gentleman may raise all of the arguments that he wants, procedurally or substantively, at the time that he has an opportunity because I'm sure he would be afford an opportunity, but with regard to the amount of time that's afforded to each of the parties represented by attorneys against the applicant, that will then, correspondingly, increase the amount of time accorded to the applicant or to the petitioner, and so, if you have a time certain of 10 o'clock, then it's just a matter of you know, the Chair conducting the meeting and setting times. I can tell you that fair and reasonable approach that any court of law would look at it is your even-handedness and your willingness, as a Commission, to hear everyone. In position of time limitation that are reasonable, it would not be, I don't think, frowned upon by the courts, at all. Mr. Lukacs: Commissioner Gonzalez, I might say that there was one motion, in particular, the one that goes to the interpretation of the Code provision under the presiding officer that could very well dispense with the need for any further effort on this matter. IfI could be heard briefly, it's a Code provision that's easily accessible by -- Chairman Gonzalez: How much time do you need? Mr. Lukacs: -- Mr. Fernandez and his -- Chairman Gonzalez: How much time do you need to --? Mr. Lukacs: I need five minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Lukacs: Thank you. I'm going to file a motion with the City Attorney and hand out a copy to each of the -- Seems I've already spent one minute of my five minutes, so I'll be quick. In the City ofMiami, the Mayor is the presiding officer of the City Commission, with the authority to designate another member of the City Commission to serve as a presiding officer. If the Mayor designates another member of the City Commission to serve as the presiding officer, that member of the City Commission may not move, second, debate, or vote, unless the member relinquishes the chair, and then subject to only to the limitations imposed on all the members. That is Section 2-34, entitled "Presiding officer; vacancy." On January 25, 2007, the Mayor of the City ofMiami did not serve as the presiding officer of this hearing; Commissioner Gonzalez did. Commissioner Gonzalez served as the presiding officer when it considered, on first reading, the matter of the Related Group's application for the rezoning of the subject property. On January 25, Commissioner Gonzalez was prohibited from moving, seconding, debating, or voting on this matter until and unless he relinquished the chair, as required by Section 2-34(b) of the City Code. On January 25, 2007, Commissioner Gonzalez, most respectfully, sir, debated and voted in favor of the Related Group's zoning application, but did not relinquish the chair, as mandated by 2.34(b) of the City Code, prior to doing so. At all times material during that hearing, this Commission was represented by the CityAttorney's Office. On January 25, the Clerk of the City Commission announced that the Related Group's application for rezoning passed by a 3/2 vote in favor thereof. Commissioner Gonzalez was one of the three votes in favor. Without Commissioner Gonzalez's vote, the Related Group's rezoning application fails. We contend, at Grove Isle, that Commissioner Gonzalez's vote in favor of the Related Group's City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 rezoning application is, again most respectfully, sir, a nullity, as the debate and the votes were made in direct contravention of the clear and unambiguous language of the Section 2.34(b) of the City Code. Accordingly, the City Commission's deliberation and vote on this matter, in reality, resulted in a 2/2 tie and not a 3/2 approval, as was announced by the City Clerk. A 2/2 tie vote, at least in this city, is tantamount to the denial of the application. Based upon the City gill/Pamirs perceived majority approval of the Related Group's rezoning application, the Related Group and the City are here before you today, or actually, the Related Group and I are here before you today for second reading. In view of Commissioner Gonzalez's failure to comply with 2-34(b) of the City Code and the City Commission's perception, this matter has been approved on first reading. We are in doubt as to the existence of our rights, whether we even go forward with this. We submit to you, however, that what has occurred here is is a 2/2 vote. It may seem like a procedural technicality, but these are the law in the book; it's the law of this land, and it's the law to be enforced today. I would respectfully request, Commissioner Gonzalez, in view of the black letter law set forth in the City Code, that you, sir, recognize the fact that your vote was a nullity on January 25, and that this matter resulted in a 2/2 tie and, therefore, denial of the application, and we can all go home for the remainder of the afternoon. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chairman, can I make an address? Chairman Gonzalez: Sure. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Lukas, is it your contention that anyone who would be serving as the Chair would not be entitled to vote, so to speak? Mr. Lukacs: That is not my intention, as long as the black letter law is followed. Commissioner Sarnoff I read your motion; it's an interesting motion. My question to you is simple. In any one of the members of this Commission second, discuss, or vote -- so I'm taking the person of Commissioner Gonzalez out of this -- is it your contention that nobody sitting here can act as the Chairman? Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, prior to his answering that question -- and pardon me, Commissioner Sarnoff -- perhaps an interesting argument on appeal. My recommendation is that you proceed; acknowledge the fact that the gentleman has delivered this motion to the Commission; thank him for his fine hyper -technical research, but proceed to the merits. Commissioner Sarnoff I appreciate that, Mr. City Attorney. I'm asking -- I'm actually asking the mover his contention, and I want to understand that going forward today, regardless of how we proceed. Is it your contention that as soon as one of these Commissioners picks up the gavel, that that Commissioner cannot second, discuss, or vote on the issue? Mr. Lukacs: The answer to that is yes, provided he has not relinquished the Chair, because that is the letter of the law in Section 2-34(b). I didn't write the Code provision, Commissioner. It was written -- it's been on the books for quite some time, and imagine the impact it's going to have on all of the votes that have occurred in the history of 2-34(b). Commissioner Sarnoff Well, let me go down the rabbit hole for a moment, as you're speaking, so we're taking Commissioner Gonzalez out of this. It's just a fact by some fortuity -- maybe not a fortuity, but he actually held the gavel in his hand, and your contention is that not because of the way he voted, but just his holding that gavel and the way that you read the Code, his vote should be nullified, correct? Mr. Lukacs: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Now, going down your second branch of your free. If anyone here were City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 to proceed today -- let's say your motion fails for a moment -- is it your contention whoever's holding the gavel could pass that gavel and still vote? Mr. Lukacs: If that's the rule of procedure where the parliamentary course of conduct is followed, then that's what it is. Unfortunately, your Code doesn't address that. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Lukacs: The reality is is we are constrained by the law -- Commissioner Sarnoff I understand. Mr. Lukacs: -- and the law is what it is; we follow it, and excuse me for being hyper -technical, but we're dealing with some very serious issues in this matter, and I insist upon everybody being hyper -technical. Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Lukacs: That being said, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: So, Mr. City Attorney, it's your opinion -- you are my attorney; you represent me -- that I'm entitled to vote on the -- on any item, not on this specific item, but in any item coming before this Commission at the same time thatl Chair the meeting? Mr. Fernandez: Of course, you can, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: And again, my advice to the Commission, I highly suspect that over the next several hours, you would be lured, enticed, baited, any number of interesting words into a debate of what would for sure be an appellate case that would go on for some time, and so the part of wisdom on your part is to listen courteously, pay attention to the testimony that's adduced, that goes to the weight that you give to the evidence, competent substantial evidence, and deal with the substantive issue. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. -- Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chair, let's go ahead and move on. He could take this up on appeal. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Lukacs: I beg your pardon? Your comment, sir? Commissioner Sanchez, was that directed to me? Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, it's directed to everyone. Let's move on. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. City Attorney, is it your interpretation that the vote ofJanuary 25, 2007 was a 3/2 vote constituting at least an approval of this rezoning application on first reading, based upon the arguments I justpresented under 2-34(b)? City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Fernandez: Sir, I'm not your witness, and I will not be cross-examined by you or anyone. I'm here to give legal advice and counsel to my client, the City Commission, and clearly, I have advised my client, the Commission, how to proceed. Mr. Lukacs: The record's clear. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you. Lucia Dougherty: I think the -- do you want the staff to make their presentation? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, certainly. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: But just before -- Chairman Gonzalez: Please. Ms. Dougherty: -- that occurs, I just want to object for the record because the Code provision existed last month; they did not object to it; they waived it, and in this interpretation, one district would be disenfranchised at all times. Chairman Gonzalez: That's right. PZ.1 06-01060Iu 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 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 EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 06-010601u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010601u - Analysis.pdf 06-010601u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-010601u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-010601u - PAB 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 03-27-07 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-010601u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010601u & 06-01060zc CC Exhibit A (OId).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 06-01060zc, 06-010601u & 06-01060mu CC Zoning Map - Updated.pdf 06-010601u CC SR 03-22-07 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010601u, 06-01060zc & 06-01060mu CC Exhibit A (Revised Legal).pdf 06-010601u CC 04-26-07 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 06-010601u Submittal - News Article.pdf 06-010601u Submittal E-mail John Lukacs.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Grove Bay Residences Motion.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Grove Bay Residences MUSP.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Illustration of Devp. Site.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Jack Luft, Luft Consulting.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter Hadley Wlliams.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter- Natioanal Trust for Historic Preservation.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Letter- US Dept of the Interior National Park Serv..pdf 06-010601u Submittal Photos- Lucia Dougherty.pdf 06-010601u Submittal presented by Goggins.pdf 06-010601u Submittal presented by Henry Iler.pdf 06-010601u Submittal presented by John Lukacs.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Report on the Impact by Shubin.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Report on the Impact by Subratabasu.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Resolution presented by Ivan Rodriquez.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Richard J. Heisenbottle.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Shoreline Devp. Review Committee Reso..pdf 06-010601u Submittal Size Comparison - Ellie Haydock.pdf 06-010601u Submittal transcripts.pdf 06-010601u Submittal viewshed impact assessment.pdf 06-010601u CC SR Fact Sheet 04-26-07.pdf 06-010601u Submittal Comm. Sarnoff Letter.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue [Commissioner Marc City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 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 IDs 06-01060zc and 06-01060mu. 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. Votes: Ayes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado Noes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sanchez and Spence -Jones ***************************************************************************** **************** Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice -Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to continue items PZ.1, 2, and 3 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for April 26, 2007 for the sole purpose of voting on said items. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): Good afternoon. For the record -- Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Mr. Lavernia: -- Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. This is the second reading of the petition of change the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities to High Density Multifamily Residential, for the property at 3663 South Miami Avenue. It was fully presented at the -- at first reading. The Planning Department recommend approval and the Planning Advisory Board recommend denial, due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor. Item number two is the zoning change for the same property, from G/I Government and Institutional to R-4 Multifamily High Density Residential. The Planning Department also recommend approval. The Zoning Board recommend denial of the item. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Lucia Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a question. Would you all like to --? Chairman Gonzalez: Just allow me to thank my colleague, Commissioner Sarnoff. You know, thanks God that we have an attorney sitting on the dais. I want to thank you, but I -- City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you know, I'm kind of concerned. I was listening to him, and I was kind of concerned because I have seen not only City Commission meetings for many, many, many, many, many years where the Chair has always voted, but I look at the Planning and Zoning meetings, and I look at all of these lower boards meeting where the Chair always vote without relinquishing the gavel, so you know -- I mean, I was kind of concerned, but thank you, Mr. City Attorney, for your advice. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: I will always follow your advice. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, you have the option, as you usually do, to consider and open all three items in front of you at the same time so that all the evidence would apply correspondingly to whatever item, and that would economize on your time -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. I will -- Mr. Fernandez: -- so that they don't have to stand up three times to repeat. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. I think that's the way I want to go. I wanted, you know, everything that is said here today will be incorporated on the record in reference to all three items, and I think that's the way that it will allow us to be able to get it over with, this matter today, one way or the other, whatever is going to be. We're going to be in session until 10 p.m. I hope that we be able to handle this long before 10 p.m., but at 10 p.m. or maybe 9:30 p.m., if it take us that long, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussion among the Commissioners and for a vote, up or down, whatever the vote is going to be; that only God knows and each one of the Commissioners sitting on the dais. Yes, sir. John Lukacs: I justhave one objection to that procedure. Mr. City Attorney, the rezoning application should, in my opinion, and I would ask that that proceed first. What's happening is you're going to end up blurring all the issues as it relates to all three of those items. We need to focus on the law and the facts and the substantial competent evidence that pertains to each aspect of this application. The courts, when they review this, are going to be looking at strict scrutiny here as a standard in determining whether or not this Commission addressed each and every item that is set forth in our Code and in accordance with the law itself. Chairman Gonzalez: So what you're trying to tell me -- I don't know how many persons we have here today; maybe 200. What you're trying to tell me, sir, we need to hear the 200 persons speak on PZ.1 and then come back with the same arguments on PZ.2 and then come back with the same arguments on Major Use Special Permit? Mr. Lukacs: Commissioner, I'm not telling you to do any such thing. I'm suggesting to you that the issues with respect to each of the components of this application are sufficiently important and detailed and need to be addressed separately so that we don't blur over the statutory code and legal requirements for your review and based upon your deliberation of the substantial competent evidence that'll be presented here today. You can adopt whatever procedure you want. I'm just informing you that I believe that that practice will lend itself to blurring and obfuscating the real issues in this case. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right, let's proceed. Lucia, good afternoon. Mr. Fernandez: And the Chair will proceed according to your ruling -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Fernandez: -- and now Lourdes needs to present the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) part of the 3. Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): Right. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Slazyk: PZ (Planning & Zoning) number 3 is the Major Use Special Permit. This is a Major Use Special Permit for consideration of approving the 300 Grove Bay Residences project. It's located at 3663 South Miami Avenue. The project consists of a residential development ranging in height from approximately 304 feet to 411 feet. It will have 300 multifamily residential units, with 642 parking spaces. The Planning Department has recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Advisory Board has recommended denial, due to failure of obtaining a majority of affirmative votes. It was a tie vote at their meeting of September 20, 2006. The Major Use Special Permit conditions are in your package. There are 19 conditions. I'm going to go briefly over condition number 11, which are the conditions that have to do with the design -related issues. The Planning Department has recommended approval with the condition that the project be -- that the scale -- the project is out of scale with the area. That's a finding. The Planning Department had recommended approval of a rezoning to R-4, even though under an interpretation of the existing G/I (Government/Institutional), it would have been interpreted as R-3. The Planning Department found that the R-3 zoning would be appropriate; however, they recommended approval of the R-4, in that the R-4 provides a more flexible zoning classification; R-3 has a 50-foot height limit. What the R-4 does is it allows for more variety in height. However, the way the applicant has proposed the project, they found it to be out of scale with the area. They're recommending that it be rescaled. They're also recommending condition 11(b), that the FAR (floor area ratio) bonuses be removed; condition (c), that the -- ensure public access to the proposed bay walk; condition (d), that the applicant obtain approval of a nonsubstantial modification to the former Mercy MUSP for the nursing home on the property. That was done, however. That's already been approved, and Condition (e) was that the Mercy Hospital parking garage, which was a Class II Special Permit, be constructed prior to the issuance of any other construction permits for this project. The area where this project is to be located has a surface parking lot which serves the Mercy complex. They've obtained a Class II Special Permit for a new garage. We want to make sure that that garage is constructed before they remove these parking spaces. There were also conditions, if you look in your packages, in condition 13, that had to do with the Transportation Department regarding installation of new traffic signal and other traffic -related conditions, and condition 14, I'll just go over very briefly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter of approval from the proposed height from Miami -Dade County Aviation. If no approvals are granted, the height of the proposed project shall be reduced to the heights referenced in the letter from Miami -Dade Aviation, dated May 2, 2006, which is also in your packages. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Ms. Dougherty: -- members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with co -counsel John Shubin, and with us this afternoon is John Matuska, who is with Mercy Hospital, and representing Ocean Land and The Related Companies of Florida, which is the joint venture developer, Jean Francois Roy and Mark Eiserman are here, and Jorge Perez and Bill Thompson from The Related Group. At your last hearing, you passed, on first reading, the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning on first reading, and this read -- this hearing will be the second reading of the Comp Plan and the rezoning, as City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 well as the Major Use Special Permit, but between readings, your first and second readings, you passed a resolution requiring disclosure of any consideration paid to individuals or groups to support or not oppose the application. This is a new policy. We have consistently been told that we should meet with our neighbors and try to address their concerns. In fact, at the last Commission meeting, I was here, Mr. Chairman, you praised two groups of people for getting together before they came to you, so we've done that, and we entered into agreements with certain neighborhood groups, and in fact, the City Attorney has, in fact, many -- oftentimes said that neighborhood agreements are irrelevant to your consideration, and in fact, that he has not allowed us, in some cases, to even acknowledge what these agreements were. It seems the Commission now has a different policy, and they do believe that this may -- agreements may have bias or show a bias to the applicant or the speakers who may be supporting it, and for that reason, John Shubin will be addressing this disclosure ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Clerk, will you please set the clock so we know exactly what time's been consumed by the applicant, and we --? Ms. Thompson: I have the time written down, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: You do? OK. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Great. Thank you. John Shubin: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address you on this important issue. John Shubin, Shubin & Bass, 46 Southwest 1st Street, on behalf of the applicant. To amplify a couple of the points that Lucia made and to preserve some points for the record, the passage of the resolution between the first and the second readings of the application before you, which has the effect of seeking to have a retroactive application for a contract already in existence, and for that basis, we believe it is improper to be applied to any contracts that were in place. It's an unconstitutional impairment on the right that individuals have to freely contract, and it doesn't further the police power in any manner, which is the traditional test employed by courts to determine whether or not a regulation substantially impairs the right of contract. Ironically, it also has, I think, an unintended consequence, and that is it shields and restricts the public's right to speak on issues pursuant to voluntary agreements to do so, and to that extent, I would maintain, for the record, that it violates everyone's First Amendment right to petition government, a right that you're seeing duly exercised here today. Another important issue that I think was unintended at the time was that the resolution attempts to inject new standards into the consideration of a zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinances need to be considered according to the standards in your land development regulations, and there's absolutely nothing in your land development regulations that deals with private agreements between parties. It is over -inclusive in that respect and it's also under -inclusive in that what it does not do is does not require disclosure of what we would maintain is the much more pernicious attribute of these types of agreements. It's agreements between individuals to oppose projects. If you look at your resolution, it does not include that. It only requires disclosure of consideration where there are agreements to support or withhold opposition. Now, the resolution also fails to recognize that these agreements have been routinely held enforceable by Florida courts, and I'll just cite for the record Biscayne Associates versus Carson, 104 Southern Second 871, which was a court of equity, which upheld the right of a contract party to enforce these types of neighborhood agreements. Commissioner Sarnoff What's the date of that? Mr. Shubin: The date of that case is -- City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff 1920-something? Mr. Shubin: Excuse me? 1958 -- Commissioner Sarnoff '58, OK Mr. Shubin: -- and I -- we can also cite, if you would like to have cited, other cases that have recognized -- Commissioner Sarnoff If you have them, you should put them on the record. Mr. Shubin: It is not necessary to preserve the objection. Commissioner Sarnoff I think you should put them on the record. The City Attorney's going to make a recommendation to us, and if you're going to make a record as to what you're proposing the law to be, give the City Attorney the ability to sit there, analyze, and provide the best advice he possibly can to us. Mr. Shubin: I think we're going to make if easy for you, Commissioner Sarnoff. We just want to preserve all these objections for the record, but notwithstanding them and without waiving them, we fully intend to comply with the resolution, subject to those objections. Now, as I understand the proceeding -- and we're sort of in uncharted waters here -- there is a disclosure form, and I will simply do my best to announce into the record how we intend to comply with the disclosure form as we understand it. First of all, the business of the applicant or the entity name is TRG MH Venture, Limited. It has an address of 315 South Biscayne Boulevard, Third Floor, Miami, Florida 33131. The issues that we are seeking approval are the issues before you today, PZs. 1 through 3, Comprehensive Plan amendment, amendment to a zoning atlas of Ordinance 11000, and a Major Use Special Permit. Is any consideration been provided directly on your behalf to any entity or person for an agreement to support or withhold objections at the requested approval, relief or action? The answer is yes. If so, to whom is the consideration been provided? Item A, the Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, Inc.; B, Bay Colony Condominium Association, Inc. Describe the nature of the consideration, support for the association projects: Landscaping, security, maintenance, and general mitigation improvements. One other thing that we need to point out for the record: There's an acknowledgment in the form that states that I hereby acknowledge that upon determination by the City Commission that the foregoing disclosure requirement was not fully and timely satisfied, the following may occur: Number one, the application or order, as applicable, shall be deemed void without further force and effect, and two, no application from person or entity for the same issue shall be reviewed or considered by the applicable boards until expiration of a period of one year after nullification of the application or order. Now, I know that you're dealing with a resolution, and I guess it is the City's intention to place this into an ordinance, but the resolution, as read, with the disclosure form, I can tell you, will bring all lending to an end in the City of Miami to the extent that there are no time limits on when the disclosure of these agreements, after the fact, would void an agreement. Now, it's my understanding that at the last Commission meeting, there was some discussion that these issues needed to be raised and addressed by the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting, but that is not in your resolution and it's not in your disclosure form, and the practical effect of this resolution is if ten or fifteen years from now someone makes a dying declaration that they had an agreement for $20 to support an application, the way your resolution reads now, it could void that application after the fact. I don't think that's what you intended. Clearly, lenders will not lend on a resolution like this, and it's cert -- we would certainly appreciate you putting the interpretation on the record. Now, there has been a lot made in the public over the last six months to a year about an agreement that was allegedly made with the Bay Heights Homeowners Association and with Natoma Manors, and there were agreements reached, and those agreements have been amended to completely release any obligation of those homeowners associations to either support or City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 withhold their opposition to this project. The practical effect being, those agreements are not covered in any way by the resolution as it is drafted. The resolution very clearly states -- the disclosure form very clearly states that it is contingent upon an obligation to either support or withhold, and I'm representing to you -- as an officer of the court; I am licensed to practice law - - that those obligations have been fully and properly released, and therefore, there is no disclosure obligation under the resolution. I will also represent to you, as an officer of the court, that at no time did that agreement ever have an obligation for any individual members of the community to support or withhold their opposition. It only applied to the boards of directors of those associations, and in fact, many of the people who appeared at the last hearing and spoke in opposition to this project were probably members of the two associations with whom the applicant had a contract. Now, what we have also done -- and I don't want to belabor this -- is we have put narrative summaries of the Coconut Grove West Homeowners and Tenants Association agreement and Bay Colony agreement into the record. I would also like to note for the record that Bay Colony is represented by separate counsel, Mr. Neil Schiller. He has objected to certain portions of the agreement being disclosed. We believe that we have satisfactorily complied with the spirit and the letter of your resolution. Two of these agreements have confidentiality provisions, and as those of you who are lawyers might know, those lawyers who are parties to agreements that have confidentiality provisions are duty bound to preserve the confidences of their clients. Notwithstanding that, I believe that we have satisfactorily complied with the resolution, and I'm going to turn this into the Clerk. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Shubin, stay there for a second. Mr. Shubin: Sure. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Shubin, ifI were to directly ask you what was the consideration given to the Natoma matter and Bay Heights Association, would you disclose that to me? Mr. Shubin: I could not, under my ethical responsibility. Commissioner Sarnoff So, then, the record -- Mr. Shubin: As a lawyer, I think you're well aware of those. Commissioner Sarnoff So the record's clear, you've not disclosed, correct? Mr. Shubin: The record is absolutely clear on that point. Commissioner Sarnoff Secondarily, sir, the nature of the consideration was requested as part of our resolution. Mr. Shubin: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff What is the nature of the consideration of the two associations that you've given? Mr. Shubin: Let me read the narrative. Commissioner Sarnoff Is that what you read to us? Mr. Shubin: The exhibits go into slightly greater detail, and let me just read it, with your City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 indulgence. Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, this is the supplement to our disclosure. TRG MH Venture, Limited has agreed to help facilitate projects that Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, Inc. would like to complete. These projects include, A, construct a storage shed within the historic black cemetery and complete the wall surrounding the historic black cemetery defined as the cemetery projects; and B, construct a wall offame in Virrick Park and a wall offame at the Virrick Park Library building defined as the Verrick Park Projects. TRG MH Venture, Limited has agreed to contribute $50, 000 towards the construction of the cemetery projects and $35, 000 towards the construction of the Virrick Park projects. With respect to Bay Colony, TRG MH Venture, Limited has agreed to mitigate potential impacts. Bay Colony is the immediate abutting neighbor, just so you know; has greed to mitigate potential impacts during the construction of the proposed project which have been identified by Bay Colony Condominium Association, Inc. This mitigation includes the installation of landscaping to act as a buffer during construction of the project; installation and maintenance of security gates at the entrance of Bay Colony; maintenance of the improvements on Bay Colony's property from the dust and debris caused by the consfruction of the project, and reimbursement of lost rent from the boat slips during construction of the project. Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you, counselor. Mr. Shubin: Thank you. Mr. Lukacs: Point of clarification. Has Bay Heights and Natoma Manors withdrawn their support of this project. Mr. Shubin, can you respond to that or, perhaps, somebody from the developer's side; perhaps Mr. Thompson? Has Bay Heights or Natoma withdrawn their support of this project? William Thompson: Their support of this project is entirely up to them at this point. Mr. Lukacs: Well, the fact of the matter is is that at the first hearing, we had members of Bay Heights and Natoma who were benefiting from a monetary agreement struck with the developer. That evidence and popular sentiment was brought before this Commission, and to whatever extent it played in this Commissions' decision to vote 3/2 in favor, needs to be addressed; all the more reason to know whether or not they had withdrawn their support. They were paid witnesses coming in. Now to escape or circumvent the disclosure requirements under this new resolution, they're no longer going to be witnesses. Well, guess what? That goes straight to the credibility of whatever they testified to at the first hearing, and I think that is something that needs to be addressed for the record now. Our due process rights have been affected to the extent that witnesses came here expecting to receive compensation, and now has simply conveniently released their agreement with the developer to escape the reflection that it has upon the developer, having gone out and paid for support in the community. I understand the issue of statutory consfruction, the issue of whether this resolution applies prospectively versus retroactively, but there's something else that we have to address, and that is a conflict in the Constitutional rights that we have here. These homeowners may have a Constitutional right to withdraw. You may be impairing their contract. But you know what? My clients have a Constitutional due process right to be heard, to cross-examine, and to understand and be able to exploit the lack of credibility of any witness that comes here for payment of consideration in support of a project, and that, I submit to you, was the intent behind adopting that resolution, to make sure that you, as friers offact, are in a position to assess and to weigh the credibility of witnesses that come before you, so I ask the question again: Is Bay Heights and Natoma supporting this project? Mr. Shubin: I'm not here to respond on cross-examination. Let me just state affirmatively two things. At the time that the first hearing occurred, there was no resolution, so Mr. Lukacs' argument is laughable that somehow peoples' actions should be evaluated according to a City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 resolution that didn't exist, number one. Number two, I couldn't have made myself clearer. The boards of directors were released from any obligations they have. If any one of them want to come forward today and speak their minds any way they want, they're free to do so, and Mr. Lukacs, if he sits tight, will hear what people have to say from the community. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Lukacs: I'm going to object and ask that the first reading and the approval that this Commission gave 3/2 be set aside on the basis of -- Chairman Gonzalez: I don't know why you keep insisting -- Mr. Lukacs: -- a violation of our due process rights. Chairman Gonzalez: -- on a vote that already took place three weeks ago. I mean, you know, all you're alleging and all you're saying, I think, is fine, beautiful, great arguments for your appeal. I'm sure that you're going to appeal this, whatever -- if this comes contrary to your desire or your client's desire, so you know --I mean, you know, we're not going to move back, you know, to the other hearing and change -- and take another vote now -- reconsider the vote of the first meeting and take another vote. We're going to continue with the second hearing. We're going to hear arguments, and then, according to the arguments and the evidence presented, then each Commissioner is going to vote, and then the next step is be you going to the Court of Appeals. It's not going to be the first time. It's not going to be the last time, so you know. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Your objections are on the record. Commissioner Sarnoff And Commissioner Gonzalez means to say, ifyou need to. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, but his objections are on the record and well put. Chairman Gonzalez: Of course, of course. Everything that is said here is on the record, so you know. Yes, ma'am. Hopefully, you're going to be able to start your presentation. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. At the last hearing, we -- because you have incorporated all of the testimony from your last hearing into this hearing, we will abbreviate our discussion regarding the rezoning and the Comp Plan amendment. I just want to remind you that the staff recommended approval of the R-4, which is technically a down zoning and a down planning, and it is appropriate -- and they said it was appropriate for the property if it was no longer used as a hospital, and the reason for that is because it has exactly the same FAR; exactly the same size building can be built under the current G/I ordinance, and it has the same height. Only the density that is proposed is actually less than the R-3, which you could build as -of -right under the G/I ordinance. We are proposing, as you recall, 300 residential units, and under R-3, we can have 408 residential units, and in R-4, 1,008 units, and again, we are only proposing 300 units. It's interesting that Jack Luft found a 1961 zoning atlas map showing that this property was always -- from 1961, was actually zoned R-4, so the translation from R-4 to a G/I when it became a hospital is not incongruent because it does have exactly the same size building. It could be built under either zoning classification. Commissioner Sarnoff What was the date of that? Ms. Dougherty: It was a 1961 atlas. We'll pass it out to you. Commissioner Sarnoff Has the neighborhood changed since 1961? City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: Yes, and so has the zoning, but the same size building could actually be built under both zoning classifications. Regarding the traffic, because it is residential, our traffic plan shows that a hundred trips, per peak hour; whereas, a medical office building of the same size would produce 2,750 trips, per peak hour, and if -- I would assume that if all the residents left at the same time from this residential unit, it's probably less traffic than at a good party at the Vizcaya. A nursing home or other assisted living facility for the elderly at 150 units per acre could be permitted or 108 total units from -- under the Comp Plan. This use also calls for $1, 600, 000 to be put into the Affordable Housing Trust fund, and there's a much needed capital improvement into the Mercy Hospital, and for the record, we're going to have Jack Luft talk about his conclusions very briefly and submit them for the record as to the consistency of this rezoning and Comp Plan amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, and then we will go into the VIUSP. Jack Luft: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Jack Luft, 1717 Windward Way, Sanibel Island. As I stated at the first hearing, it is my judgment that both the Comprehensive Plan map amendment to R-4 and the consequent companion zoning change to R-4 -- to -- the Master Plan change to high -density multiple family residential and the companion zoning change to R-4 are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Development Plan as adopted and approved. I'm submitting for the record an analysis of the elements of the plan, 33 specific goals, objectives, and policies that are specifically complied with and supportive of this application. The overarching policy intent ofyour Comprehensive Plan, as embodied in these policies and objectives, is to encourage the infill and redevelopment of underutilized parcels in the City to the infrastructure capacity that has been provided over time for this site. The site has been zoned and planned for high -density, high-rise, unlimited height development for over 55 years. It is the objective of the plan to achieve a development pattern consistent with the infrastructure support that has been planned and provided. The plan seeks to optimize land use relationships where localized synergies between places of work, residence, services, and leisure activities can occur in a more efficient, proximate relationship. Your plan continually stresses the common theme of placing jobs, housing, services, and amenities closer to each other. This, of course, is a major, by definition, center -- regional center of jobs and services on the Mercy Hospital property, and your plan in the G/I specifically encourages high -density housing proximate to those services, and your other third primary theme ofyour plan is to encourage a balanced land use pattern with a range of development intensities that will economically support the services and public facilities needed by the community. The Mercy site is one of the few remaining locations in this area where the plan supports these kinds of diversity of housing densities and types. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff Wait, wait. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a few questions? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, could you stay up there? Mr. Luft: Sure. Commissioner Sarnoff Now, you made a determination of blight, correct? Mr. Luft: Of blight? Commissioner Sarnoff I'm reading what you had, the writing here, it says fosters revitalization of blighted areas. Mr. Luft: That's out ofyour Comprehensive Plan. There are several -- I put the whole -- one of the conditions of blight, under the State Redevelopment Act, is vacant and underdeveloped City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 parcels, OK, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff Any underdeveloped parcel is then blight? Mr. Luft: If it's characterized by a large enough area, but that wasn't the determining factor. Commissioner Sarnoff Let's just see if you and I can agree on something. You're asking for a zoning change, correct, and you're speaking to the zoning change? Mr. Luft: The zoning change is -- Commissioner Sarnoff It's a yes or no. Are you speaking to the zoning change? Mr. Luft: I'm speaking to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Sarnoff And that zoning change would come about under Section 2202.1(e)? Mr. Luft: The zoning change must be consistent with your Comprehensive designation. The first consideration is the map change. If it is determined that the map change is appropriate to multiple family high -density, then you are required, under Chapter 163 of the state law, to make a companion zoning change to implement that -- Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft -- Mr. Luft: -- so the issue is the map change. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, I'm going to ask you the question directly. Under Section 2202.1(e) of the Miami Code, do you have to show the proposed change is in harmony with established land use patterns? Mr. Luft: You would under the code of the Land Development Code. That follows the Comp Plan. Commissioner Sarnoff Speak to me about the zoning change. Mr. Luft: The issue is the Comp Plan change. Once you determine the land use, you must then match the zoning to that. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, I'm going to ask you this question -- Mr. Luft: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff -- in the most broad way that I can. Mr. Luft: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff Have you considered the proposed change to be in harmony with established land use pattern? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff How many other R-4's exist in Coconut Grove? Mr. Luft: The R-4 applies to the -- City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff How many other R-4's exist in Coconut Grove, Mr. Luft? I know you left a while ago. Mr. Luft: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff I can tell you there have been none since you've left. How many R-4's exist in Coconut Grove? Mr. Luft: I don't know. Commissioner Sarnoff I'll help you. There are none. The proposed change, do you find it, sir, related to the adjacent and nearby districts? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff What district are you relating it to? Mr. Luft: R-3. Commissioner Sarnoff R-3? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff You're certainly not relating it to R-3 in height, correct, sir? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff R-3 is how high, sir? Mr. Luft: Five stories. Commissioner Sarnoff And give me just in feet because I'm not very good with that, how high that is. Mr. Luft: Fifty-five feet. Commissioner Sarnoff And you're recommending, sir, a 410-foot building? Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Just for my math, how much of a difference is that; five or six times the height? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff And you find that to be compatible, right? Mr. Luft: I find it to be fully compatible with Section 907.342 -- Commissioner Sarnoff That's not my question. Mr. Luft: -- of your Code, sir. No. Commissioner Sarnoff That's not my question. My question to you was -- and I'll relate it to you again since we don't seem to communicate well -- the proposed change is related to an City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 adjacent and nearby district. Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff You said to me that nearby disfrict was R-3. Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff I then questioned you and asked you what R-3 was. You related to me it's five stories or fifty-five feet. Have I misheard you so far? Mr. Luft: No, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Then you tell me that R-3 is at least five times as low, or ifyou will, your 410-foot building is five times higher, or more, than R-3, correct? Mr. Luft: Correct. Commissioner Sarnoff Just for the record, it would actually be seven or eight times, wouldn't it? Mr. Luft: Whatever. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: We're talking about an unlimited height disfrict. We're not talking about a specific project. Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, you're suggesting the unlimited height disfrict, sir. I'm asking you -- Mr. Luft: That's -- it's already there. Commissioner Sarnoff Where's the unlimited height? Mr. Luft: G/I. Commissioner Sarnoff Oh, OK. Mr. Luft: It's already there. Commissioner Sarnoff So you're saying that G/I would allow unlimited height, but just for the record, sir, what is the highest piece on that G/I? Mr. Luft: Mercy Hospital. Commissioner Sarnoff And how high is that, sir? Mr. Luft: About 110 feet. Commissioner Sarnoff A hundred and ten feet, so this, then, would only be four times higher than the highest building? Mr. Luft: Sir -- Commissioner Sarnoff Is that a yes or no? City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, thank you. Now, let's keep going. How do you find this to be in scale with the needs of the neighborhood? Mr. Luft: Because it provides a development intensity and density that's consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the standards of your Code. Commissioner Sarnoff Tell me an R-4 that's within ten city blocks of this neighborhood. Mr. Luft: Commissioner, that makes no difference at all, none whatsoever. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, it asks about scale, correct? Mr. Luft: The G/I District -- Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff -- does it ask about scale? Mr. Luft: Yes, it does. Commissioner Sarnoff Would you agree with me that scale can be considered height? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Would you agree with me, sir, that I could not go ten city blocks in either direction and find an R-4? Things haven't changed that much since you've left. Mr. Luft: The Brickell high-rise district is R-4. Commissioner Sarnoff The entire district, sir? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff How many blocks away is that? Mr. Luft: 25th Road. Commissioner Sarnoff How many blocks away is that? Mr. Luft: Probably ten blocks. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, so the closest that we can find in terms of scale -- Mr. Luft: According to your map, it's five blocks away. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, so the closest we can find in scale is Brickell, right? Correct, sir? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff I'm going to ask counsel not to instigate her client for an answer. It's City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 inappropriate for a lawyer to suggest a fact witness's answer, so if you're not going to hand him a document, it's not appropriate to say no or yes to him. OK. Actually, during a question pending, it's probably not appropriate, but -- OK How will this positively influence the living conditions, not of your building, but of the neighborhood? Mr. Luft: It'll provide an efficient and effective use of an underdeveloped parcel; provides 300 units of housing for this community. It'll add a hundred and -- Commissioner Sarnoff You gotta go -- Mr. Luft: -- about a hundred and -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- a little slower. Mr. Luft: Sir, you're not letting me finish. Commissioner Sarnoff I can't hear you, and instead of making you -- Mr. Luft: I -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- repeat it fi^om the beginning again, I want you to go slower. Mr. Luft: It will add new development to an underdeveloped, underutilized parcel. It will add a substantial increment to the tax base, which supports community services. It will provide housing for this community in a range of income types that this plan seeks to provide all ranges. Commissioner Sarnoff What is the range of income types that this particular plan seeks to obtain? Mr. Luft: High income. Commissioner Sarnoff High income? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Would you say very high income? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: Your plan seeks -- Commissioner Sarnoff Do you know of any project --? Mr. Luft: -- to support all income ranges. Commissioner Sarnoff It would support all income? Mr. Luft: A balance of housing types and income ranges is what your plan seeks. Commissioner Sarnoff No, no. I understand that, butl don't want you to suggest to this Commission -- Mr. Luft: No, I'm not -- City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff -- that this is going to support all income levels. Mr. Luft: No. It supports the -- Commissioner Sarnoff This is going to support the highest income levels that the City ofMiami could find, would it not? Mr. Luft: Commissioner, it supports -- you asked me, OK? Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Mr. Luft: Your plan says that to benefit a neighborhood or a community, you need a range of housing types and incomes, a balance. That has been a problem in Miami for many years, as you well know. In the 1980's, Miami was the poorest city in America, OK? The challenge in the 1980's and early '90s was to find ways to bring higher income residences and residents back to the City. Coral Gables, Aventura, Miami Beach, Doral were all building high -density, high -income housing and the City was not. It was severely impacting the ability to support commercial services because expendable incomes were falling. The population of the City was falling. The City, in its Comprehensive Plan, sought to bring those incomes, expendable dollars, and a balance back to this community, and that is what is happening, and that's why this benefits all the neighborhoods. Commissioner Sarnoff So this benefits all the neighborhoods for tax reasons, right? Mr. Luft: For all kinds of reasons. Coconut Grove Village Center is now being outflanked on economic sides by Merrick Park, by South Miami, by Miracle Mile, and one of the principals of urban infill and development is to bring an expendable income base back in to support local services and commercial that is in existence. This will add about $100 million dollars a year in expendable income to the Coconut Grove market base. Commissioner Sarnoff What is our capacity right now, Mr. Luft, with regard to condos going up? I'm speaking of the cranes in the sky. How many condos are available and what ranges are they? Mr. Luft: Well, there's condominiums going up in Little Havana that are of moderate income along 12th Avenue, 22nd Avenue. Commissioner Sarnoff You could restrict yourself to District 2. Mr. Luft: There are condominiums going up on both sides of Biscayne Boulevard to the west and to the east; most of those along the bay front are very high income. Commissioner Sarnoff So we'd just be adding to the high income then? Mr. Luft: Yes, that's -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: -- the nature of the land. Commissioner Sarnoff How does this particular MUSP, if you will, have the same or similar impact on traffic and does not affect the public safety to a greater extent than the existing classification? City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: The existing classification allows for an office institutional use that has a trip generation rate that is far greater than the multifamily that this would restrict the site to. Commissioner Sarnoff What do you consider when you consider in the family, what type of people are you considering using or being brought into a person's home of these high rent or high expensive pieces of property? Mr. Luft: I said multifamily. That's a description of a development. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, this isn't a multifamily. This is a -- you told me this is a high income, probably the highest you can imagine, in Miami. What type of people do you envision coming in to facilitate this particular project? Mr. Luft: High income families. Commissioner Sarnoff I understand. Who else? Will they have -- for instance, might they have maids, cooks, housewives? Mr. Luft: Certainly. Commissioner Sarnoff Would you envision there would be flower deliveries? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Do you see a consistent use offolks changing their kitchens and upgrading their houses and their apartments consistently? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Do you see appliance sales going in, painters remodeling, family, guests? Mr. Luft: All the homes in the community, hopefully, have that kind of activity. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, but you certainly -- Mr. Luft: It's part of the renewal of the community. Commissioner Sarnoff Right, but you certainly would agree with me there's going to be a number of servants in this particular --? Mr. Luft: Surely. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, and that -- Mr. Luft: The issue here is peak hour. Commissioner Sarnoff Well -- Mr. Luft: Peak hour is the issue, and you don't usually schedule your services at peak hour. That's the problem with the institutional use category because those do generate extreme peak hour trip loads, which is the problem on Bayshore Drive. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, let me ask you. In anywhere in your MUSP, have you restricted these peoples to and fro on your peak hours? Is there any restrictions you placed in there? City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: No. This is a typical land use category characteristic, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: -- there's a significant difference between multifamily trip generation and that of institutional users. Commissioner Sarnoff Moving along, sir. The proposed -- Mr. Luft: I never did finish my answer on the -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'm sorry. I don't mean to -- Mr. Luft: -- height and scale question. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You may proceed. Go ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Luft: Yes. Height and scale can be and often is a very personal reflection of what people determine to be acceptable; can vary from community to community, neighborhood to neighborhood. We're dealing here now with the application of the police power of the state. The police power of the state is land development regulation, as you well know. The courts have said, and the construction of-- what the Supreme Court said in Amber versus Euclid is that the basis of the application of the police power of zoning is to derive predictable, consistent, and fair regulation of land use so that we can have an equitable treatment of property owners, OK? The difficulty we have when we start exploring attitudes or opinions about scale is that they vary all over the map. I might think that 15 stories or 20 or 30 is fine; you might think 5; someone else would say 10. There is no consistent or predictable way for anyone to understand their property rights and what they can build in a compatible fashion, if it is subjected to a public hearing display of hands, a vote, or the opinions of various assorted individuals as to what is proper. That is why your Code establishes a standard. It establishes that standard in 907.3.2, and it says, "Scale or height of buildings adjacent to single family and duplex neighborhoods, " and it sets a standard which is presumptively compatible. In other words, if you stay behind that line, if you stay below that limit, you are in scale and compatible. That's what your Code says, and the application of your rules of law obliges you to accept that that is the standard. Now, if you want to change the standard, so be it. If you want to create different standards and different locations and you can justify that, fine, but you -- today, as we stand here, you have one standard and one standard alone, and that standard says that a 300-foot building adjacent to the Glencoe single-family neighborhood has to set back 125 feet, and if it does, or greater, it is in scale and compatible. That's what your Code says. That's the standard. Now, this particular project, without talking about any development here -- we're talking about the Master Plan and my conclusions of compatibility -- the closest any structure could be built on this site in the neighborhood of 300 feet is 600 feet from that neighborhood. It is 4.8 times greater than your Code standard for compatibility of scale. When I, as a planner, put -- am obliged, as are your planners, to read their own laws and make conclusions by virtue of what the adopted rules are, when I say it's in scale, it's not because I personally have one feeling or another way, or I have asked somebody else, or I've taken a show of hands. What I'm saying is, according to your rules and your police power regulations, it is in scale and that is why I conclude that it is consistent with your plan. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff I'm not done. Mr. Luft: Fine. City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff Tell me how a proposed change has the same or similar impact on light and air to adjacent areas as the existing classification? Mr. Luft: Because it meets all setback standards ofyour Code. There are no variances required. Commissioner Sarnoff Tell me -- to Vizcaya -- Mr. Luft: Your setbacks are the measure of light and air. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, the light and air, sir, are of a height ofyour building. It starts with the height of your building. Mr. Luft: And your set -- Commissioner Sarnoff Tell me how many 410 foot buildings you can find from Vizcaya south. Mr. Luft: That makes no difference at all. That's irrelevant. Commissioner Sarnoff It's irrelevant to the light and air? Mr. Luft: The fact is light -- Ms. Dougherty: I don't think he understood your question. Would you repeat it one more time? Commissioner Sarnoff I said -- I'm merely going through the 2202.1 subsection (e) -- Ms. Dougherty: But you were comparing it -- the existing zoning to the current -- the requested zoning, the R-4 to the G/I. Mr. Luft: Yes. It's the same. Commissioner Sarnoff Because G/I is unlimited. Mr. Luft: That's correct. Commissioner Sarnoff But what we have there presently right now, the highest you said was 120 feet, right? Mr. Luft: Historically, that's what -- been being built so far. Commissioner Sarnoff But don't -- what's there now? Mr. Luft: Mercy Hospital. Well, that's irrelevant. Commissioner Sarnoff Hundred and twenty feet, right? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, so again, similar impact on light and air, your similarity would be the 120 footMercy versus the 410 footproject. You find that compatible? Mr. Luft: Yes. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Now, how does the proposed change contribute to the improvement or development of the adjacent property in accordance with the existing regulations? Hr. Luft: Because it places a concentration of residences close to services and jobs. It creates a synergy of use that benefits particularly that regional concentration of activities at that site. Commissioner Sarnoff How does it help the R-1 neighborhood that's directly adjacent to it? Hr. Luft: Well, that gets us into a very interesting discussion about tax base. I don't think we need to go there right now, butt will tell you that a condominium of this sort, according to Brown University; Robert Pichel studied them for the Department of Community Affairs. Typically pays $5 in property taxes for every $1 in services it requires. Anything that is a net donor of property taxes in a development form in the City does benefit the provision of services to the greater community. Commissioner Sarnoff Just so I understand your answer, the answer to my question is it helps the R-1 neighborhoods because it will pay taxes, correct? Hr. Luft: It will pay taxes -- Commissioner Sarnoff Is that --? Hr. Luft: -- that may need support services, and it does -- Commissioner Sarnoff How else --? Hr. Luft: -- it has no defrimental impact other -- because it -- Commissioner Sarnoff I didn't ask -- I didn't -- Mr. Luft: -- meets all your Code requirements. Commissioner Sarnoff -- ask for the defrimental impact. That's for the Commission to decide. I asked you for the improvement and the development of the adjacentR-1 neighborhood, and the answer to that question is taxes, correct? Hr. Luft: It would provide -- according to your Code, the development of this site will have to provide public bay walks and access to the bay; it will enhance the public -- general public in the neighborhoods immediate accessibility to that major resource. It adds value where there is none today. Commissioner Sarnoff So it would increase the value of the R-1 neighborhood, correct? Hr. Luft: According to the Urban Land Institute, any kind of development of this sort that brings high value residences in that meets the standards and regulations for compatibility does help the overall value of the area, and I think that would be the history of Coconut Grove. Commissioner Sarnoff So any development anywhere, under your analysis, helps the next adjacent property owner, correct? Mr. Luft: I didn't say that. Commissioner Sarnoff No, but I'm frying to figure out what you are saying, because you're suggesting to me -- City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: You're taking us -- Commissioner Sarnoff Let me finish. Mr. Luft: -- you're taking my specific comments and then generalizing them. Commissioner Sarnoff I'm not. What I'm doing is -- Mr. Luft: Yes, you are. Commissioner Sarnoff -- I'm asking you if -- I'm speaking merely to the R-1 neighborhood -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and I am asking you -- you told me now that the R-1 neighborhoods we help because this will help pay taxes, but I would suggest to you it probably helps the R-3 neighborhoods, it probably helps a commercial establishment, it probably helps the folks in Allapattah. It probably helps anyone in Miami. Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Your analysis really is a budget analysis, correct? Mr. Luft: No, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, forgive me, Mr.Luft, but -- Mr. Luft: It is a synergy of land uses, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, your synergy, let's get to that for a moment, because under your analysis, an R-1 neighborhood will be facilitated by a 410 foot structure adjacent to it, correct? Mr. Luft: So long as it meets the transitional and setback requirements, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, let's assume it does. Let's assume it does everything you want it to do. You're telling me that it will help an R-1 single-family neighborhood because it will bring the value of that home up, correct? Mr. Luft: The history of -- Commissioner Sarnoff It's a yes, no. Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, and -- all right, so I guess that's for the ear of the beholder. Is that all the ways that it helps? Have you provided to me everything you can consider right now, how this helps an R-1 single-family neighborhood? Mr. Luft: In this particular case, the biggest issue in Coconut Grove -- and I lived in a single-family neighborhood for 33 years -- is the traffic impacts on those neighborhoods. Anything that allows for a highest and best use of a site that can minimize the traffic impacts, and that's what this does; this changes, as your staff has said and characterized it as a down zoning. City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff You also -- Mr. Luft: This is an opportunity to provide a development that will, alternative to the current G/I potential, have far less traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Sarnoff My question to you, and you seem to revert away from it, is contribution. Contribution to the improvement, not detriment for the development of the adjacent property, and you've articulated to me and this Commission, every way, shape, or form, that this 410 foot structure will provide to this community, correct? Mr. Luft: According to your standards, it will. Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you. Now, tell me why it is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed uses in districts already permitting such use? Mr. Luft: Because they're fully developed. Commissioner Sarnoff I can't hear you, sir. Mr. Luft: They're virtually fully developed. Commissioner Sarnoff Are you --? I'm sorry; I don't know what that means. It's certainly fully developed. Mr. Luft: There's -- I know of very few sites left in the R-4 on Brickell or on the Bayshore Drive high -density area. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, there are no R-4's in Coconut Grove, correct? Mr. Luft: The equivalent of the R-4 is in the R-O district on Bayshore Drive, the SD-17. Commissioner Sarnoff So you got me -- where are we now? We're up on Brickell again? Mr. Luft: No. We're on Bayshore Drive. Commissioner Sarnoff Bayshore Drive. Mr. Luft: That's -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Luft: -- the equivalent, Grovenor. Commissioner Sarnoff I'm sorry. You -- did you say the R-O is the same as an R-4? Mr. Luft: I said the multifamily scale of development is -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Mr. Luft: -- essentially the same. Commissioner Sarnoff So my question to you is still different. Why is it difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area? Mr. Luft: Because they're all developed. City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff They're all developed? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff So there'd be no blight. Since they're already developed, there are no less -- there are no open areas of land, correct? Mr. Luft: In the multifamily high -density districts that are available, there are virtually no sites left. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, do you agree that we can find other spaces for condominiums in Miami? Mr. Luft: There are many places for condominiums. Commissioner Sarnoff They just don't happen to be on the water, correct? Mr. Luft: That's correct. Commissioner Sarnoff Yet, you would agree with me that there are still cranes in the sky that are in the water, just right adjacent to it? Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff And it's your opinion that there's no other adequate site because you want to be able to build an R-4 in Coconut Grove, because there are no other R-4 sites available on the water for Coconut Grove? Mr. Luft: Commissioner, we're talking about amendment of the Future Land Use Map. This is a document that, by state law, projects 15 years to 20 years in the future. You provide, in your plan throughout this community, substantial lands for development that exceeds what is needed at any one given point in time. Development goes in cycles. There is much more commercial land than we have need for commercial at this moment. There is much more industrial land, and there is much more high -density residential land. The question is what are the rights that you have prescribed for this particular property? And you cannot withdraw those rights based upon a sense of "Well, it could happen somewhere else." You have asserted in your plan that this is the proper use, this is the proper scale, this is the proper relationship that is compatible; your plan says so, and that is the right of the property owner to develop within that -- those parameters -- Commissioner Sarnoff Well, Mr. Luft, all was -- Mr. Luft: -- and it doesn't depend on how many other people are doing things elsewhere. Commissioner Sarnoff -- doing was reading Section 2202.1 subsection (e), subsection (p), which states, "It is difficult to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use." Mr. Luft: That's what -- Commissioner Sarnoff All I was doing, sir, was asking you for your finding as to whether there were other adequate sites in the surrounding areas. Mr. Luft: And said there weren't. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff So this is it? This is the last batch we're ever -- Mr. Luft: Doesn't have to be -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- going to find? Mr. Luft: -- the last. There is not an adequate supply. Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Goggins: I have a few follow-up questions. My name is Patrick Goggins, offices at 77 -- Chairman Gonzalez: City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, part of the protocol order that was not established is ifyou're going to allow contemporaneous exchanges or questions, like this gentleman now is proposing to do, or you would first take direct testimony from everyone, and then after everyone has, from the applicant's point, spoken, then address those. You may choose either way. It all depends. Chairman Gonzalez: No. I'd rather have them complete their presentation and then have questions asked, you know, at the end. Mr. Fernandez: Well, the issue being is -- when the applicant -- applicant will have three, four more speakers as part of their case in chief. You have the option of waiting to cross-examine those individuals at the end of applicant's presentation, or you may choose to do it more contemporaneous, which is every time one stands up, like Mr. Luft in this case, he was asked by Commissioner Sarnoff, but then now these gentlemen would like also to ask Mr. Luft -- Chairman Gonzalez: No, no. Mr. Fernandez: -- questions. Chairman Gonzalez: I have no problem with any of the Commissioners asking questions, you know, from any of the expert presented, but you know, the counterpart, I -- you know, I would rather have that done at the end of their presentation and then you can ask, you know, all questions that you want. Mr. Lukacs: I can understand that as being an attempt to be efficient in this process, butt might suggest the following, again, respectfully. In the ordinary course of a frial -- and I know this isn't a frial, per se, but quasi-judicial and pretty cotton-picking close to a trial -- the protocol is typically when a witness is on the witness stand, he stays on the witness stand, he gives his direct testimony, and then, contemporaneously, we have the opportunity to cross-examine. The reason for that is, for those of us, like myself who have short-term memory, I'm able to at least ask -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but -- Mr. Lukacs: -- questions now. Chairman Gonzalez: -- let me tell you, you -- you know, I'm sure that you're a very competent attorney and you can take notes and then refer to your notes at the time of cross-examine [sic]. Mr. Lukacs: OK. City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: OK? Mr. Lukacs: It's your call. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, so we are able -- are we able to ask a --? Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I just want to just get clarity on something real fast. Regarding the issue of 'fosters, the growth and devel" -- no, no, not that one -- regarding the "promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth ofjob opportunities in the City." Mr. Luft, can you speak to me a little bit on -- and this is in your document -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can you just speak to me a little bit on that, how is this going to provide more jobs -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- the number ofjobs -- 'cause I just want to have clarity -- and what type ofjobs? Mr. Luft: Well, you have in your proposal an economic analysis by, I believe, Sharpton Bronson that details those numbers. From a planning standpoint, I can remember vividly, particularly in the 1980's, when the president of SunTrust came to us and said 75 percent of his executives lived in Broward County because they could not find what they considered to be acceptable housing in the community. Many more lived in Coral Gables than elsewhere. The problem that posed in the City Commission -- different people, same Commission -- was extremely concerned that expendable incomes were flowing out of the City. People would come here to make their money and they would take it home with them. The value capture of providing high income housing in the City where you can get someone to build it and someone to buy it, the principal advantage of that is to contain, or retain that expendable income of those individuals that is much more likely to support the retail services, the commercial base, the office occupancies. We now have a movement in this country, in our cities, where people are coming back to the center and looking to live closer to work and closer to those services. When you do that, you revitalize or re -energize that commercial base, those service base, and those development opportunities that follow. Everything follows residential. Any developer will tell you retail follows residential, office follows residential. That's why it's been booming in the west, that's why in the Doral, in Blue Lagoon areas, in Coral Gables areas, and it hadn't been here because we were simply not re -energizing our residential base in this community for about 30 years. With this kind of development, the development you're seeing in the Omni and the Brickell area, you are now seeing the next phase of the development cycle, which is the commercial services and the jobs that come -- that support -- that provide the support for that expendable income. This is all part of a tied -together economic strategy, and this is part of the piece of that puzzle. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, basically, you're saying -- and I just want to be very clear -- the jobs that are going to be created from this particular project is not necessarily from the project itself it's really from the off-spense (phonetic) of the project? Mr. Luft: Well, any project will generate construction jobs, and bigger ones -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. That's what I wanted -- City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: -- generate more, but as Mr. Sarnoff a moment ago pointed out -- Commissioner Sarnoff Commissioner Sarnoff, Mr. Luft. Mr. Luft: -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- flower vendors, repair people, contractors, maids; a variety of people come in and service these facilities. These are all jobs that are much more likely because they tend to be a service sector that is very typical of the kinds of population we have in this community that, unfortunately, because we're not Coral Gables, many of the people that provide those jobs live here, and the closer you are to them, the more efficient, the more effective, the more successful that they can compete for those jobs. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Luft, I have a question, andl apologize. Follow-up: You would agree with me that a full-time resident would be out consuming in the Village Center, Brickell, wherever else in the City than a part-time resident, correct? Mr. Luft: Well, obviously, if they're part-time, they're not here, so they can't be consuming. Commissioner Sarnoff So when you testified on February 22 that the reason there would be so much less traffic is that this is just second homes for people, they won't be here consuming but 50 percent of the time, in answer to Commissioner to Spence -Jones question. Mr. Luft: Did I say that, or did the traffic consultant say that? Commissioner Sarnoff You said that, sir. Mr. Luft: I don't recall saying that. I would have to see the transcript. I will tell you that from a planning standpoint, we don't plan based upon seasonal occupancy; we plan based on full occupancy, because you can't control -- I mean, Brickell, when it was first built, was primarily seasonal. That has changed. It has changed over the last 20 years, and that's the way you presume the build -out of the city and that's the way that you draw the Master Plan, with that presumption. Commissioner Sarnoff So we're presuming -- so anything we heard at the previous Commission meeting, we should be considering full-time residents and occupants of this condominium, correct? Mr. Luft: As a planner, I think that's the appropriate thing to do, and what -- to meet concurrency, you have to generate trips from those units as though they were here year-round. There may be that impact initially. I -- no one can predict how long that will last. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so I guess -- I'm sorry. Mr. Luft: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Are you --? Commissioner Sarnoff I'm sorry, Commissioner. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm just trying to gets some clarity on a couple of things. And then the other question I had for you, and I -- maybe the City -- I don't know where the City -- other City Attorney left to, but just so that I'm clear, because it seems as though I'm just listening to Commissioner Sarnoff, his viewpoint, or at least where he's somewhat going. The issue ofR-3, I City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 want to understand -- what was the reason for not going for the R-3 instead ofR-4? Mr. Luft: R-3 is a transitional zone. Right now you look at the high-rise zoning on Brickell Avenue, the bay front; that's R-4. On the west side of Brickell Avenue is R-3, and on Miami Avenue behind that is R-1. R-3 is a step or a transitional zone that is meant to stand between higher density and lower density. Many people will differ as to whether or not it is sufficient as a transition zone, whether going from 40 to 5 to 2 is an effective transition, but that's the way that your Code positions R-3, and if you look through the City on 22nd Avenue, on 27th Avenue, on Flagler Street, on Southwest 8th Street, multiple examples of commercial or high -density. In your commercial district, your C-1 allows the same as R-4, so between your commercial and your low -density areas, you'll often find your R-3 as a fransitional district. Fortunately, in this particular case, which influenced my opinion on this matter, you already have an R-3 there. You have an R-3 on the bay front by Fairview -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Luft: -- and Glencoe, and the Carol Manor project, which is approximately five stories, is equivalent of an R-3 scale, and that stands between the neighborhood on -- west of Bayshore and this site, so you have, effectively, this site wrapped on two sides by R-3 as a transition and Mercy Hospital to the north. It makes no sense to put what is -- amounts to a fransitional zoning on this particular parcel because you're then putting a transition use up against 110 foot high Mercy Hospital, high -intensity, high -activity area. You want to match -- and that's why I say the synergy is correct. You put your high -density next to your high -intensity uses, and that's certainly what Mercy is. You don't put a five -story apartment building in the shadow of that if you already have the transition buffer in place, and you do. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: I just want to put in the record the Zoning Code, the entire Zoning Code for Coconut Grove, as well as the Zoning Ordinance, because directly across the street is an 0-zoning which allows for R-4 density and development in it, so with that, I'd like Jack -- I mean, Bernardo Fort -Brescia to come forward and present our Major Use Special Permit. One of the things that the City staff has said is that they would like us to reduce the building. We have also talked to our Vizcaya neighbors, and they have asked us to reduce the building and to somehow mitigate the impacts that this project may have on the surrounding property, so with that, we've asked Bernardo to look at some lowering of heights, and he's going to produce a -- or show you a building today that is actually lower than that which is in your Major Use Special Permit package. Mr. Lukacs: Point of order here. We have now a new plan that's being presented for the very first time. Has the application been amended? Ms. Dougherty: The application has not been amended. This would not be the first time where - - if the City Commission liked this plan -- and just like the City staff said, we approve the Major Use Special Permit, subject to bringing it into scale or conformity with what they would believe is the lower scale. We are doing that before we get the Major Use Special Permit, if we are allowed to do that. Mr. Lukacs: OK, so I would have had to have sent out a new public records request in order to gain access to what purports to be -- Ms. Dougherty: You would -- Mr. Lukacs: -- changes now as to this plan? City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: -- not have gotten it because no one has it, and the staff either. Mr. Lukacs: No one has it and the staff so this is now going to be a presentation of first impression, and I'm sorry, Chairman Gonzalez; I was directing my comments to Ms. Dougherty, with all due respect. We're hearing now, for the very first time, that there's going to be a new plan. I would object to that. This is something that needs to be considered. We have engaged experts to evaluate the plan, and the plan that has been presented, at least the plan that was presented to this Commission at first reading, is now going to take on a new shape, a new form; presumably, you know, a proposed compromise, if you will. I would object to that. We would oppose any modification, any changes being made to this plan on first impression and being introduced to us for the very first time this afternoon. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Is it --? Ms. Dougherty: I understand you, in fact, have seen it; is that correct? Mr. Goggins: Patrick Goggins, office 77 -- Ms. Dougherty: Isn't that correct? Mr. Goggins: -- 77 Brickell Avenue. I represent Constantine in this matter. I'll join with Mr. Lukacs in objection to presentation of this new plan. It has never been presented to the public. It is not part of the public notice. It is not part of the public record, and I think it should be stopped. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Your objection has been accepted and it's part of the record. Mr. Fernandez: With regard to the MUSP, the application that's in front of you is what you're considering. However, this is the very first time that the applicant has an opportunity to present the MUSP to you, and what is so essentially unique about a MUSP is that conditions oftentimes are attached to thatMUSP that arise out of the conduct of the hearing, the first and only hearing that the MUSP gets. I have been here with you over two and a half years and there has yet to be a MUSP which has not changed, significantly sometimes, from the application that comes to you formerly that by the time you finish making requests and impositions of the applicant, it is a differentMUSP. I believe that what the attorney for the applicant is saying is that she's signaling to the Commission that once you get to the area of deliberation, they would be amenable to changes to the Comp Plan -- changes to the MUSP. Mr. Goggins: One more point I'd like to make for the record. This amended project has not been through Planning and Zoning, I would imagine. It has not been through the Zoning Board or the PAB (Planning Advisory Board) process. The City's Planning and Zoning process involves starting in the Planning Department, going through Planning and Zoning -- going through the Zoning Board, going through the PAB, and ending up here. To change the project at the 11 th hour, like this, violates my client's due process rights and I, again, object. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just have one quick question, Mr. Chairman. Do you have a question, Commissioner Sanchez? Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know from the last hearing that we had, one of the things that City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 was suggested was that, you know -- I'm assuming that -- because I had a true issue with the height of this building; it was entirely too tall, so I'm under the impression that, at least, there was going to be some sort of compromise that would've been made between both groups where, at least, the height of this building would have been considered. Now, I know that a lot of times we have had, at least within my disfrict, when the two opposing sides are frying to push for their projects, I requested that they, at least, sit down, or at least, they come back with, you know, some, you know, suggestions, so my question is -- I mean, I would be interested to, at least, see if the building has gotten lower, at least to hear it for the first time. Ms. Dougherty: Again, for the record -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, we have done it before. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. We are prepared to present both projects to you. We can show you what it was and what we would accept as a condition from this Commission if you would like to see a reduced height, which is no different than you've done in any other number of cases where -- and it's no different what the staff is suggesting. The staff has recommended approval of the MUSP, subject to a change in the plan, and we are here before you; already have taken that upon ourselves to reduce the height in relationship to the plan that was before. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Lucia, I just have to ask this question. Is there any rea -- did you guys -- did you, at least, sit down to meet with them to make sure this -- Mr. Lukacs: I will tell you that -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- before you proposed this plan? Mr. Lukacs: -- I had breakfast with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Francois Roy, and I can't recall who else there was. Oh, Mr. Shubin, and we were told that there was a consideration being given to a reduced height. Unfortunately, the reduced height is one that is so far in excess of the least intensive abutting zoning disfrict that there is no compromise, no settlement, if you will, Commissioner, and no further discussion on that point. We were told point-blank that they would not go below whatever this proposal is going to be under any circumstances, so it's kind of a take -it -or -leave -it type proposition. That's not negotiation, that's not compromise, and that's why we're here today, because my client is placing all of their faith and confidence in this Commission to do the right thing and to analyze our zoning ordinances, which is the whole reason, Commissioner, I wanted to go forward with the zoning issue first. Because if this Commission, upon consideration of the facts and the arguments to be advanced, decide that it shouldn't have been a 3/2 vote at the first reading, this is not an appropriate property for R-4, this application is over, and we wouldn't be spending another five to six hours listening to the MUSP and listening to compromises and listening to conditions. The fact of the matter is, and we will maintain consistent with all of our objections throughout this entire process, this property cannot, should not, and will not be rezoned to R-4 to facilitate a special privilege to this developer. Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But they did sit down -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- you did sit down to --? Mr. Lukacs: As I mentioned, we invited them to breakfast; we listened to what they had to say. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Bernardo Fort -Brescia: Good afternoon. My name is Bernardo Fort -Brescia. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Which one you'll be --? I'm sorry. For the record, which one would you be proceeding with? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: Would you like to see the lower height one? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would like to see both of them. Ms. Dougherty: They would like to see the lower height one. Mr. Fort -Brescia: OK Well, there are some common elements to the site plan, whether the buildings are taller or lower, and I thought that I would first take you through the merits of the plan and facts about the proposed buildings, and I'd like to begin here with a site plan, and first -- you can see here in this image the position of the buildings with respect to the parcel at Mercy Hospital and the surrounding areas, and the three elliptical forms that you see here on the southern end of the property are the building that I'm going to present to you. The building is approached -- the property is approached on Halissee Street and Halissee right now is a rather unfriendly street. It is poorly landscaped. It lacks a pedestrian component. It's strictly a vehicular path, and what we're proposing is to re -landscape it and make it look like a real Coconut Grove street with lush frees and proper sidewalks for people to reach the waterfront. Halissee arrives to our site and it's the only point of connection, which is what you see here in the lower left-hand corner of this image, and it takes you either around the property to reach the balance of the property at Mercy Hospital or up into a gentle ramp into an elevator garden that conceals entirely the two levels of garage on the site, and unlike many buildings that are often proposed to you, which are attached to a vertical parking structure or often on top of a very large garage, in this case the garage is completely concealed from the waterfront through a series of landscape terraces. Because the property is large, the garage is horizontal, and therefore, it really is -- elevates the buildings and places them above the flood level, in fact, and creates a series of landscaped zones along the waterfront, including what is, I think, a very important part of this proposal, which is the creation of a bay walk that is a public access walk that takes you around the whole point, in this position, on Biscayne Bay. This means that with the modifications to Halissee, pedestrians will be able to come from South Bayshore Drive, properly separated from the vehicular traffic, and connect directly, without crossing a street, into this bay walk, as I am showing you here. This bay walk has a series of pocket parks and green areas and places where to sit under the trees or next to the waterfront, and it creates what I think is the most prominent new future that doesn't exist much in Coconut Grove and particularly for this neighborhood. This makes this neigh -- the neighborhoods behind have access to the waterfront. Currently, most of the buildings in the neighborhood are properties that abut the waterfront, and there is no public access walkway directly south of this property. It is -- these series of terraces, I show you from these plans, carefully conceal the garage. There's a series of cabanas. There's a series of swimming pools. There's a elevated sand beach, and there's a -- and green areas that are compromised of the landscape effect that is created along the waterfront here. If you look at the next level, which is the green roof that is being proposed, is a very large park, and the buildings are suspended on stilts, and you can actually see right through them below so that even when you are walking along the edge, you get the airflow through and under the buildings and in between the buildings. The buildings are quite aerodynamic. There are actually a series of elliptical buildings; they have a curve linear and soft in the sense that they're not only curved, but they're surrounded entirely by verandas that create light and shadow along the facades so they're not hard glass buildings. These are very City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 much residential buildings with very large balconies that surround them, and you can see them here positioned in the southern end of the property, as far away from the northern neighbors and as close as permitted by Code to the waterfront in the eastern and western ends and creating a curvature along the edge and opening up that waterfront aspect to Biscayne Bay, and I repeat that this is a public access walkway that we are providing as shown. Some of the images that you see here show you the section and how the garage disappears behind what appears to be a natural form of topography on the site. I'll take you now into some of the elevational aspects of the project, and if you don't mind, let me place this closely. You've seen this image before, and this is the image of the buildings superimposed on the site. There are three buildings, as per the original proposal, that are articulated through the balconies into a series of wrapping, sort of pieces that form the composition of the building. The buildings rise from a lower to a middle to a higher building, beginning with the lowest building next to the western end of the property and rising toward the east to the taller building, and ifI were to do a comparison, and you can see here from the opposite direction, the elevation as you were to see it fi^om Mercy Hospital, with a lower building and a series of terracing roof lines that form the basis of the design. Here, you can see the ramp that takes you up to the green roof and the garage that is fairly low, in a low slung, and quietly concealed within the site. It's with this that I'd like to do the comparison with what we are proposing, and we -- and I have some numbers to share with you. What we are proposing is to actually lower the buildings, and everything that you see here so you can compare with the image adjacent to you, and this doesn't change the site plan that you have seen to date. It is substantially essentially the same proposition, but you can see here the three buildings that we are -- that is part of the original submittal, and everything that you see in gray here is being removed. In other words -- and I'll give you -- tell you what this represents. We are reducing a combined number of feet between the buildings of 137 feet and 9 inches, for a total of 12 floor plates that we are removing throughout different buildings. This represents a reduction of about 30 units or about 129,000 square feet of saleable square footage. This is a significant reduction for, you know, waterfront location like this, and what it does is it can be explained with a series of images that you're going to see. We did bring some photographs that we took of the context in Vizcaya, and these are some of the views of Vizcaya and the context of the City facing north, and in this view that you see here, you can see it looking out in that same direction. Now, I'm going to show you -- I show you that as reference because, really, the most important images are the ones that I will show you in the other direction looking at the buildings from the side of the Vizcaya, and then this will show you some of the impact that -- the changes that we're proposing make. This is the image of Vizcaya today, and with a very significant dip -- and may I remind you. Vizcaya has a center access facing south, a second access facing toward southwest, and a third one toward the southeast, and clearly, of course, what we are referring to is the easterly most access over to the southwest, and this is taken elevated up in the porch, not down in the park, but actually in the -- probably the most -- the moment where there's highest visibility; you're looking down onto the park, and you can see here the three buildings. I mean, clearly, the easterly building is the one that has the least of a presence because it is in the context of the very well developed center wing of the garden that has very large and mature trees, and this shows you what happens in the same context if we replant the trees that were originally on the site. Our landscape architect has told us of some history. We have looked at some pictures, and that they're in -- even if we chose to plant even more than was even there and -- because we have access to the site on the other side of the fence. As you recall, Vizcaya, at one point, sold -- the original owners sold the property to Mercy Hospital, and there's a fence there, and the garden was interrupted. The garden used to continue, and right now there is the LaSalle School, and of course, the landscaping is not of the density and there's no control of what happens on the other side of the fence. We're proposing to plant on both sides of the fence in order to create this. Now, the image that you just saw of the reduced height of the buildings is this one, and I'll be pleased to compare it with previous image, and you can see here, this is without replanting the portions of the garden in the dip that occurs. You can see that there's a tree line here on the garden, and there is a sudden dip here in the middle, and then this is already the reduced option, and then look at what happens once we've reduced the building height, and we have replanted the garden as it is proposed in the plan that our landscape City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 architect is suggesting, and he is here, of course, to answer any questions in this respect, and so I leave you with this image because it is -- I show you the evolution, and there are two factors here. A factor that has to do with the architectural component of this proposal, which has to do with a height that mentioned, reduction of about close to 130,000 square feet of saleable square footage, and the second factor that has to do with a landscape aspect of what happens on the Vizcaya side of the property and on the other side of the property, which Mercy and LaSalle school and the church have control over, in which we can actually deal with on our own in order to address some of the concerns that were raised, and I think with this, I'd like to leave you, I think, with all the facts that I presented, and think have everything that needed to say today. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I have -- Commissioner Regalado: Let me -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Thank you very much. Commissioner Regalado: -- ask you a question. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: All the changes have been done only to address the view from Vizcaya? Ms. Dougherty: And to reduce the height. The height was an issue for many people, so we reduced the height by, what, is it 10 percent? Mr. Fort -Brescia: There were certain concerns -- Commissioner Regalado: All the pictures and the models that we have seen here is about what you see from Vizcaya. Mr. Fort -Brescia: The images that showed you are relative to the view from the Vizcaya garden. Clearly, that also has -- is a response to -- in all directions. It's not only one direction that this would mean with respect to the relationship towards Grove Isle, the relationship to the neighborhoods to the southwest. The buildings would also have a reduced impact. There were some concerns in the staff report that talked about the bulk of the building and this addresses, simultaneously, the Vizcaya and the Planning Department's concerns at the same time. That's -- I'm not sure if that's what -- Ms. Dougherty: We -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Could you put back -- sir, could you put the last one back up, the one with the reduction? Mr. Fort -Brescia: This is with the reduction and with the planting. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. When you say a reduction of 10 percent, what are we talking -- what do -- how do we break it down into the three buildings? What are the total --? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, the reduction is largely occurring from the taller buildings, which are -- essentially, we are -- if you look at this image -- City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: What's the reduction of the tallest building? How much are you reducing -- ? Let's say building one, building two, and building three which stays the same; right? Mr. Fort -Brescia: No. The second building is also being reduced. Everything that you see here in gray is being reduced. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Listen -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, the first building is being reduced by 92 feet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that's in floors -- how much --? Mr. Fort -Brescia: The second one by 49. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, a lot of people that are listening to us don't understand the percentage because they don't know exactly the total mathematical -- Mr. Fort Brescia: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- question. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second is 92 percent. You know, it'll -- they -- the feet, forget it; they want to know the stories. Mr. Fort -Brescia: OK Firstly, in the first building -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Building number one. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- there's a reduction of nine stories; in the second building, a reduction of four stories, and in the third one, of one story. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, and therefore, the first building will be how tall? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Oh, no, sorry. Plus one. I apologize. This one is increased one. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So the last one you increased by one? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. I apologize about that. Even though we really -- the actual increase is three feet eight inches. It has to do with other -- it is not really a story, but we have to call it something. You know, there's three foot eight. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Try to answer the question. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. I'll repeat, nine stories and ninety-two feet, two inches on the easterly building. Four stories less and forty-nine on the middle building, and three foot, eight -- Mr. Fernandez: Speak into the microphone, please. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- inches, but that's why it looks the same, but what -- actually, equals to one story. We made adjustments to the levels, you know. We needed to -- we were removing a lot of sales per square feet, so -- City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that's the only reduction you basically have done. You have done nothing to the mass? And it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Hs. Dougherty: A hundred and thirty feet. Hr. Fort -Brescia: To the lot coverage, we haven't changed anything. We have the same amount of green space, we have the same amount of horizontal low parking, we have the same amount of greenery that completely conceals the garage, the same board -- waterfront walkway that we are proposing with public access, with a terracing that conceals the garage. All of that is -- continues to be part of the effect that we're trying to achieve with the design. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So building number one, reduction of nine, what does it leave you at, how many stories? Hr. Fort -Brescia: It's nine feet -- nine stories, ninety-two -- Hs. Dougherty: How many stories is the building? Hr. Fort -Brescia: Oh, how much was it before? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. How tall is it now? Vice Chairman Sanchez: You tell me what it was before; I'll do the math. Hr. Fort -Brescia: Oh, how many stories is it after. OK, sorry about that. It's now -- they're all 27 stories, all three, under the new proposal. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Twenty-seven stories? Hr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And just the last questions, and -- Hr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- on the last one, when -- that is that, basically, you're adding canopy Hr. Fort -Brescia: Well, the last one -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to fry to cover the view or preserve the view from Vizcaya? Hr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. We're doing two things. We're adding significant trees at the end of that terminus of that southeastern portion of the garden, which is where you saw in the previous images, there's a big dip in the tree line, and we are planting trees -- we're proposing to plants trees on the Vizcaya side, but we're also proposing to plant frees on the other side of the fence on our side, and if you go to Vizcaya right now and you end -- you reach the end, you look out, and you see a chain link fence and nothing; that's the end of the frees, and is an abrupt end to the park, and we're proposing that when people arrive to the -- at the end of the gardens, they will have a more dense and green vista than what you see today, even not only from the terrace, but as you reach the end, there will be, we believe, a more transitional landscape statement than what exists today, where there's an abrupt line of termination. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: At this time, we'll have Anne D. Adams, our architectural historian, testify about the affect on Vizcaya. Ms. Adams: Good afternoon. My name is Anne Adams. I'm an architectural historian with the firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in Washington, D.C. I've been working professionally in the field of preservation for about 30 years and am familiar with all aspects of preservation related issues. While the buildings may vary from place to place, the preservation concepts do not. I came down to look at the property and the project and to look at Vizcaya and what one might see from that landmark property. I concluded that the Related project before you today, while it will be visible from Vizcaya, it does not have a sufficient or significant impact on the landmark and -- that would cause it any reason for you not to approve the project before you, particularly when there are no preservation -- there's no preservation legislation applicable to Related site, and given that and there are no -- the fact that there are no preservation standards or a framework by which to consider possible impacts of this project on Vizcaya, I looked at it in the realm of generally accepted preservation concepts. Clearly, there is no physical impact on Vizcaya of this project. It's over 2, 000 feet away, and like -- I think everyone has agreed to that. There -- the only issue is a secondary affect of visibility, and I'll discuss what that does or doesn't do in a minute. Vizcaya is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. It's a natural historic landmark, and the area of significance for which it was listed as a national historic landmark was architecture, specifically the period of revival architecture. Now, those listings have no impact on the landmark property. There's no regulatory or legislative process that applies to the landmark, Vizcaya in this case, from those national register listings, and there are certainly none that apply to Related site as an undesignated property. What was originally 180-acre parcel of Vizcaya was reduced in 1945 by the sale of the -- by the owners of 130 acres to the Catholic Archdiocese. Now, this reduced the property by approximately two/thirds, and major elements of the original garden were sold off with no consideration to what was going to happen to them in the future. The owners sold the property with no restrictions or covenants on that property, when they could have done so had they been concerned about the future of the property. Vizcaya's significance was recognized, and based on that reduced size and the physical fabric of the house and the garden as it currently exists, and in the setting, the greater setting, which currently exists, which includes tall buildings that are clearly visible from important locations in the garden and on the property and that form a backdrop for this landmark house. Those tall buildings did not -- were not deemed to adversely affect the integrity of the property; certainly did not keep it fi^om being recognized as a national historic landmark because they are not relevant to the issue of the integrity of the property. A further change of the greater setting of this property by the visibility ofRelated's project will not cause Vizcaya to lose its integrity or to diminish the ability of the property to convey its original purpose or the reasons for which it has been recognized as significant. I think it's important to look at exactly what is integrity, and the National Register of Historic Places recognizes seven aspects of integrity, integrity being the ability of a property to convey that for which it is important, and whether the property retains sufficient physical fabric to convey its original purpose and use. A property is not required to have all -- to meet all seven aspects of integrity, and their importance varies in relation to the reasons the building was deemed significant in the first place. The first step to assessing integrity is to define the physical features that are important to the landmark's ability to convey its significance, and in the case of Vizcaya, it is the fabric of the house and the garden, its appearance, its size and its configuration as an early 20th Century -- as a significant early 20th Century house and garden. The aspects of integrity, as defined by the National Register, are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and all of those, which are important to Vizcaya, are -- Vizcaya retains its integrity in all of those ways. Its location, which relates to the place where the property was built, is certainly intact. The design of the project -- of the building and the garden in its reduced state are intact; materials and workmanship are still obvious from its original appearance, and the feeling of the property is still there, and it's important to recognize that feeling is not about the experience of the property by a visitor. It is about the ability of a property to convey or express its aesthetic and City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 historic sense of -- and why it was important at -- deemed important, and what it was about at the time it was constructed, and certainly, based on the presence of the physical features of the property, taking together the house and the garden, they certainly convey the landmark significant characteristics. Another issue is association, which is mostly related to sites that are important for association with particular events, which is not the case here, and then the last aspect of integrity is setting. This is the one of the seven aspects of integrity that applies to something other than the property itself. It is the greater physical surroundings of the building. Clearly, the state of Vizcaya's setting was not deemed sufficient or altered or changed to diminish Vizcaya's ability to be important for what it is as an early 20th Century house and garden. Another change to that setting, which is just one more in an already altered setting, is not going to diminish that ability, and it's also -- it's important to note that the illusion of time and space and place -- the ability of a property to transport a visitor to another place is not a recognized aspect of integrity. Interestingly and somewhat strangely, what comes across in the objections that I've become aware of to this project are concerns about the potential adverse impact of Vizcaya's ability to generate income, and the potential adverse effect on events at Vizcaya. Ability to generate income and the nature and experience of events are not preservation issues under any law --preservation law or concept, with which I am familiar, and neither of these issues or the visibility of this project are legitimate preservation issues for which this project should not be approved. Given the concerns for future income, one must assume that these events and the intensity of the events are going to continue. Ironically, it is these -- the number of these events and the intensity of use that actually have the real potential to adversely affect Vizcaya. These events cause real physical wear and tear on the property, and that is much more of an issue than the visibility of a building 2, 000plus feet away. Having said that, I do think it's a good thing that the height of this -- these buildings have been lowered, and certainly, the re-establishment of a pre -buffer along the south edge of the property is a good thing. It will very much limit the visibility of these buildings, and that's a positive thing, and I hope you will all recognize that and approve the project. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff Can I --? Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry; I didn't get your name. Ms. Adams: Anne Adams. Commissioner Sarnoff And, Anne, you are an expert? Ms. Adams: I have been qualified as an expert in many places, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Have you testified before a City Commission before as an expert? Ms. Adams: This City Commission? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Adams: No. Commissioner Sarnoff Have you testified before a court of law as an expert before? Ms. Adams: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, and I just want to get some facts down to see if you agree with them. The National Register of Historic Places, on December 11, 1978, determined this to be a historic center, correct? Ms. Adams: It was listed in the Register. I believe that's the correct date. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, and -- well, you're here to give your expert testimony. That would City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 be part of your expert testimony. Ms. Adams: I can check that exactly for you, but I think that's right, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Ms. Adams: -- it was recognized as a national historic landmark in 1994. Commissioner Sarnoff And you would agree with me that Vizcaya was the first historic building in Miami -Dade County to receive the coveted distinction of a national historic landmark? Ms. Adams: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff And it did that on April 19, 1994, correct? Ms. Adams: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff The only other building in Miami -Dade County that shares this distinction would be the Biltmore, correct? Ms. Adams: I believe that's correct. Commissioner Sarnoff And that occurred a year later, right? Ms. Adams: I don't know the date of that. Commissioner Sarnoff You talked about the setting of Vizcaya. I want to read to you something that was in our Code once, and see if you agree with this -- if it's the setting of Vizcaya. It's a little bit lengthy; I apologize. I'll fry to read it slowly. "Within Coconut Grove, bounded by a scenic historic highway, South Bayshore Drive, as designated in the Miami Environmentalist Preservation Ordinance on a Northwest 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 to ensure that future development or redevelopment of this land would respect and enhance the general character of this area and to protect against inappropriate height, destruction of natural and man-made features or incongruent design." Do you agree that that's the -- that that is a valid purpose for the Vizcaya area? Ms. Adams: What's the tract of land in question? Commissioner Sarnoff Vizcaya. Ms. Adams: With respect to the property of Vizcaya? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Adams: Yes, but -- Commissioner Sarnoff Do you agree that's also true of the surrounding neighborhood? Ms. Adams: No. Commissioner Sarnoff You do not? Do you find this project to be in scale with the City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 neighborhood? Ms. Adams: What I came down to look at was whether the project would have an adverse impact, from a preservation point of view, on Vizcaya and its integrity, and I -- Commissioner Sarnoff You're -- Ms. Adams: -- don't believe that it does. Commissioner Sarnoff -- are you measuring that in scale with Vizcaya, correct? Ms. Adams: In terms of scale, I didn't actually look at that in particular. I think the issue is -- what seemed to be the issue is the fact that these buildings would be visible. I don't think the visibility of these buildings is an issue, from a preservation point of view. Commissioner Sarnoff Is that all you're here to tell us, whether it's visible or not visible? Ms. Adams: That's what seems to be the issue. Commissioner Sarnoff So that's all you're here to tell us, whether you think it's visible or not visible? Ms. Adams: No. I believe it is visible. What I understand the issue to be, from some people's point of view, is the fact that given that the buildings will be visible from the garden at Vizcaya, there will be an adverse effect on the building and its ability to generate income and so forth. Commissioner Sarnoff You would agree with me that the house of Vizcaya is certainly oriented towards the east? Ms. Adams: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff And you would agree with me the first thing you would see emerging from that house would be these buildings? Ms. Adams: No. Commissioner Sarnoff You would not? Ms. Adams: No, not to the east. Commissioner Sarnoff Remember, east is not directly the water. Ms. Adams: All right. As you're -- all right. If you're coming out of the house from where? Just tell me that, from where? From the front entrance? Commissioner Sarnoff I'll take the front entrance. Ms. Adams: If you are coming out of the house from the water side, you will not first thing see these buildings. Commissioner Sarnoff And ifI come out of the house from the back? Ms. Adams: I actually don't think you'll see them. Where you will see them is if you are heading out toward the gardens toward the casino mound. City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff All right, so then you disagree, correct me if I'm wrong, with the County Manager, Mr. Burgess' statement, "The project will have an impact on one of the most prominent attributes of Vizcaya, the view from the house and the garden. The visual impact of the proposed towers would impact the feeling of emersion that visitors currently experience." You disagree with that statement? Ms. Adams: I don't believe that is a legitimate preservation issue. It is not related to integrity as it is currently understood by the National Register; visibility will not affect that, and there is nothing that know that includes visitors' experience as something that's legislatively controlled. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, you're not here to decide our legislation. You're here to tell us whether we would see it or not, right? Ms. Adams: No, I'm not here to tell you that. It's clearly going to be visible from some places, but it will be visible just the way other tall buildings are visible. In fact, if you stand at the end of the garden and you look back at the house, which is an important sort of reciprocal view, there are tall buildings visible over and behind the house right now. Those buildings don't seem to have caused an issue or caused an adverse effect on the integrity of the property or visitors' experience of the property. I don't think this will either in any significant way. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, remember, the historic designation was back in 1978; thus, I don't think those tall buildings were necessarily there when they registered it, but my question to you is specifically as to the County Manager for the -- I said it right, the County Manager as opposed to the City Manager. Is it your contention that it will not have an adverse impact on the most prominent attribute of Vizcaya, the view from the house and the garden? Ms. Adams: That assumes that that's the most prominent aspect of it, and I don't believe that its visibility -- and it will be visible -- will adversely affect that in any legitimate preservation context. Commissioner Sarnoff So you disagree with him on that, right? Ms. Adams: I do. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, and you disagree, I take it then, the visual impact of the proposed towers would impact the feeling of emersion that the visitors currently experience? Ms. Adams: Feeling of emersion is not a recognized preservation concept, and I don't think that's an issue. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, and I asked you this before; I don't know that got an answer. I'll try it once again. Is the project in scale with Vizcaya? Ms. Adams: The project doesn't need to be in scale with Vizcaya. It is -- I don't know -- I don't have an opinion one way or the other. It is sufficiently removed and far away that it doesn't cause an adverse effect on the integrity of the landmark. Commissioner Sarnoff On the integrity of the landmark? Ms. Adams: Um -hum. Commissioner Sarnoff And part of the integrity of that landmark would be the experience that the visitor has, correct? Ms. Adams: No. City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff It would not be? Ms. Adams: No. That's not -- Commissioner Sarnoff So, the -- Ms. Adams: -- a recognized concept of integrity or aspect of integrity. Commissioner Sarnoff -- but when you go there and you do your evaluation, at some point in time, subjectively, you must have an impression when you're in Vizcaya, correct? Ms. Adams: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Do you have an impression of serenity, a feeling of comfort? Ms. Adams: Interestingly, there are two things here. To get there -- Commissioner Sarnoff It's a yes/no question. Ms. Adams: No. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Ms. Adams: Because when I was there, it was being set up for an event, and there was an army of people hauling things through the property. It is clear that this is in a city. It is not an early 20th Century property in -- existing in the early 20th Century. Commissioner Sarnoff Wait, wait. You've been there more than once, haven't you? Ms. Adams: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff The other times you've been there, have you had a feeling of serenity and comfort being there? Ms. Adams: No. It's -- I experienced this for its architectural and landscape significance. It's not -- I don't believe that landmarks -- Commissioner Sarnoff You don't enjoy the gardens? Ms. Adams: I do enjoy the gardens. They're not in great shape, but it's not about being -- the purpose of a landmark shouldn't be about transporting someone to someplace else. It should be about conveying those things for which it is significant, and certainly, Vizcaya can do that, and there will be no affect on that ability by this project. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff None whatsoever, right? Ms. Adams: No. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Thanks. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Two and a half hours and two witnesses; we're moving right along. All right. You will have an opportunity for rebuttal when the time comes, counsel. That's what the Chair stated. I mean -- OK. Ms. Dougherty: We don't -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk -- Ms. Dougherty: -- have anything further to put into the record at this time. We'd reserve some time for rebuttal. I just want to go clearly -- when I -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- told Mr. Lukacs that he wouldn't find this as a public record, that doesn't mean that we haven't showed these plans to the Planning Department; we have, but we did not submit them as an amendment to our plans -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Dougherty: -- formally. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does that conclude your presentation? Ms. Dougherty: It does. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're just going to save time for rebuttal. All right. Sir, you have -- Madam Clerk, how much time does the counsel have, in all fairness? Ms. Thompson: When you subtract the time spent on your cross-examinations or questionings, it was a total of 47 minutes to their presentation, without the questions back and forth. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, could you put that same amount of time back on the clock? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, you're recognized for the record. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Mr. Commissioner, am I going to have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Luft and Mr. Fort -Brescia -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: -- at this time? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, you will. Would you like to do -- well, I -- Mr. Lukacs: Yes. I would like to do it at this time. They've just closed their case, and I -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Lukacs: -- think it's appropriate -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: We'll allow the rebuttal first. Sir, you're recognized -- City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Lukacs: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for the rebuttal, and then you could proceed. Mr. Lukacs: I'd like to call -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, let's go ahead and do the rebuttals. Can we get the witnesses? Mr. Fernandez: Not rebuttal -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Who would you like to start with? Mr. Fernandez: -- cross-examination, through the Chair -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- where questions are asked of you, and of course, the person standing on the other podium hears the same question but answers it. It's not a free-for-all. It is not the argumentative -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel understands. Mr. Fernandez: -- folly. Mr. Lukacs: I understand. Thank you, Mr. Fernandez. I'd like to call Mr. Luft back. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Luft. Unidentified Speaker: He's outside, so I can do it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's here. All right. Mr. Fernandez: I believe he went back to Key West. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Luft. Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry, Naples. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, please state your name and address, and this is rebuttal. Mr. Lukacs: Actually, this is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Luft. Mr. Lukacs: -- cross-examination, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sorry. Cross-examination. Mr. Lukacs: That's all right. John Lukacs, on behalf of Grove Isle Association, also on behalf of Glencoe Neighborhood Association, offices at 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305, in Coral Gables. Mr. Luft, I understand that you have filed a couple of written documents here which purport to embrace your opinions; is that correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Lukacs: OK, and one of the documents that you submitted is an analysis or consideration, if you will, of the future land use element and, specifically, the objectives that are set forth therein; correct? Mr. Luft: Correct. Mr. Lukacs: You made reference to goal L U-1, which appears in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: What I note is that you have not included within your analysis reference to policy number L U-1.1.3, which -- correction, 1.1.3, the -- which references as follows. I think that appears on page one of the future land use section. Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: OK. The first part of that policy indicates that the City Zoning Ordinance provides for protection of all areas of the City from, number one, first and foremost, the encroachment of incompatible land uses. Why wasn't that included or addressed by you in your written opinion that you've submitted? Mr. Luft: Because the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that in proximity to G/I, R-4 is a recognized and approvable land use and intensity. Mr. Lukacs: What section of the plan or Code -- Mr. Luft: That's in the interpretation of the future land use element. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Mr. Luft, it'll go a lot easier; I'll ask the questions, then you can answer, but I need an opportunity to finish my questions. Mr. Luft: Oh, sorry. Mr. Lukacs: What portion of the plan would that provision appear in? Mr. Luft: Future land use element. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Can you direct me to that section? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. To the extent that this gentleman over here in this podium oftentimes has eluded to this process being similar to that which takes place in court, reminding you all that you have to act with judicial prudence. As an attorney, I'm sure he understands that the nature of cross-examination is limited to that which was asked in direct. You know, I've just -- maybe that's more confusing than I need to make this whole process, but the questions are being asked are -- totally were not part of the record -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Mr. Fernandez: -- on direct for Mr. Luft. To the extent that he would like to make an argument or he would like to elude to something else, he may do so, but to the extent that in the direct testimony that Mr. Luft provided, no reference was made, then I would suggest to you, if you want to consider it, Mr. Chairman, that that line of questioning there is inappropriate. Were this City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 to be a full court, I assure -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, and I -- Mr. Fernandez: -- you that that's how a judge would rule. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, I agree. Counsel, stick to the questions and -- Mr. Lukacs: Oh, I will. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- statement, please, and I'm -- you know, I want to allow you the opportunity to build your record, both of the counsels, but please, fry to bear with us here, and you know, don't abuse the privilege. Mr. Lukacs: I'm -- this is not an abuse. The question of compatibility was a topic that was addressed by Mr. Luft. He referred specifically to Section 907.3.2 of the -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- Mr. Lukacs: -- Code. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- as long -- if it's based on testimony that he gave, you could cross-examine, please. Mr. Lukacs: It is. It pertains -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Please. Mr. Lukacs: -- to compatibility. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Luft, you referred me to page 18 of the future land use element, which refers to major institutional, public facilities, transportation, and utilities. The passage that you referred to is as to residential facilities ancillary to those uses, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: OK, and is it your opinion that residential uses, ancillary to G/I-type uses, can be constructed to a maximum density ofR-4? Mr. Luft: Yes. That's what it says. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Well, I'm not going to argue with it. That's not what it says. The next thing is, with respect to compatibility, 907.32, you mentioned that that was the standard or the Code provision that you referred to to determine compatibility of this project with the surrounding area; is that correct? Mr. Luft: That's correct. Mr. Lukacs: All right. Can you refer to that rule and tell me where in that rule is the word or term "compatibility" referenced? Mr. Luft: It essentially says, rule concerning height of buildings abutting residential districts. As Commissioner Sarnoff asked me, "Is height the same as scale?" And I said yes; OK. It says, City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 where disfricts allowing buildings over 40 feet abut single-family residential disfricts or two-family districts, an additional height setback shall be applied at the setback line for all yards abutting such residential districts. The height setback shall be one feet -- one foot horizontal for every two feet in the vertical, starting with an elevation of 40 feet above the flood level or every sidewalk of elevation, whichever is higher, and attached to that is a diagram that shows where that setback line would occur on the closest residential property, single-family property, to this particular site that is subject of the map change, and it shows that that line, at its closest point to a building of 310 feet high, would be 125-foot setback, and as it shows here, the setback that's been shown on this property is 600 feet, so this is the only provision in the Code that could be construed as addressing height of buildings proximate to or abutting single-family neighborhoods, and it sets a standard, a measurable, quantifiable standard for how high you have to be to comply. The purpose of the Zoning Code is to set forth standards for compatibility. That's what the Code is about. This is the standard; there is no other. This project more than complies with that. It is my professional opinion that because of this, it is, in fact, compatible in scale or height, whichever term you wish to use. Mr. Lukacs: Would it be compatible in appearance with the low- to medium -density properties that surround it? Mr. Luft: Low -- Mr. Lukacs: Would it be compatible in a --? Mr. Luft: You're talking about the hospital? Mr. Lukacs: The hospital or the low- to medium -density residential -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: -- areas that surround it. Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Did you consider the definition of compatibility, which is contained within the Zoning Code? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: All right. What does that definition provide? Mr. Luft: I will have to read it for -- do you have the --? Compatibility: Having harmony in design or appearance between two or more attributes of the structure; having harmony in design or appearance between two or more structures; having harmony in design or appearance between two or more attributes of a neighborhood, or having harmony in use of function between two or more attributes of a neighborhood area. Mr. Lukacs: Can you tell me what harmony in design and appearance this proposed project has with regard to the single-family homes and the R-3 developments that are located to the south and actually across the street as well on Bayshore? How are they harmonious? Mr. Luft: It meets the legal definition of proper scale relationship. This is not talking about a facade design, per say. This is a contemporary design by a recognized architect of considerable note. I'm not going to pass judgment on whether his design is harmonious with the immediate Bayshore 5- or 15-story building. It's certainly an improvement over Mercy Hospital's building, I will say that, because the rear of the hospital building is a service area with dumpsters and City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 heating vents and mechanical equipment, which needs to be screened, but this is -- this project will do that. Mr. Lukacs: In your opinion as a land planner, is a 410 foot structure -- and I know that that was the first plan that was offered -- harmonious in appearance with a 50-foot multifamily building built under an R-3 zoning classification? Mr. Luft: Yes, it is. It is on Brickell. Mr. Lukacs: We're not talking Brickell. Mr. Luft: Well, we're talking about 400-foot buildings and 50- foot buildings and single-family districts; doesn't matter where they're at. Mr. Lukacs: Let me ask you another question. Mr. Luft: That is an area of considerable stability, high property values, and excellent continuity in character. It hasn't suffered from or been diminished by, that I've seen, as evident by any values in that area, and that's actually closer than this. Those are about 400 feet away. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Luft, I heard Mr. Fort-Brescia's testimony, and he indicated that a compromised design here will provide for approximately 27 or 28 stories, as the case may be. That equates to buildings that will be approximately 319 or 320 feet high. Is it your opinion, as a land planner, that a multi -story building, containing approximately 27 or 28 floors, reaching the heights of 320 feet, let's say, is harmonious in appearance with a five -story multifamily building constructed in an adjacent and surrounding neighborhood? Yes or no? Mr. Luft: Yes, unquestionably. The R-3 is a district that is supposed to occur next to R-4 as a transition, and it does in many locations in the City. That's what it was designed for. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Luft, there was a considerable amount of time spent regarding the availability ofR-4 sites in the City ofMiami. You indicated that there are no available sites. Does the unavailability of-- Hr. Luft: In the immediate vicinity, I think the question was. There -- I said there were plenty of R-4 sites in the City. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Does the unavailability ofR-4 sites in the vicinity of the subject property justify, in your opinion, a rezoning of this property to R-4 to accommodate this developer's project? Mr. Luft: I think it's -- it would -- it's a factor that doesn't argue against it. The principal issue is compatibility of uses, consistency with the Comp Plan, and I've provided ample citations as to that. The fact that there is or isn't land available is the circumstance of this particular location. The question is, does this high -density, high-rise structure fit with the G/I district, which wraps on two sides of it and is buffered by an R-3, and the answer is, yes, in this area, and yes, elsewhere in the City. Mr. Lukacs: You mentioned that this property could be equated or compared to the SD-17 district or properties located and developed within SD-17, correct? Mr. Luft: On Bayshore Drive, yes. Mr. Lukacs: On Bayshore Drive, and that would be, in your opinion as a land planner, comparable to the type of development that we're achieving here or is being sought to be built City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 here? Mr. Luft: There is a height limit in the SD-17. I think it's what? It's 120 feet? I think. The intensity of the development, the floor area ratio, is comparable, yes, and the density of the number of units per acre is also 150, I believe. That's equivalent. Mr. Lukacs: OK, so the buildings that are proposed to be built, at least what we've heard today, a 318 to 320 feet, are going to be far in excess of the height that can be achieved under the SD-17 along Bayshore, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: One last question. With respect -- Mr. Luft: I'm sorry. I -- it's 220, I stand corrected -- Mr. Lukacs: OK. Mr. Luft: -- on SD-17. Mr. Lukacs: All right. Well, the answer would be the same, that the project that's being proposed by the developer in this case is going to be approximately 100 feet higher than the maximum height that can be achieved under the SD-17 district along Bayshore Drive, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes, by any definition; they're both high-rises. Yes. Mr. Lukacs: In your submittal, dated March 23, 2007, under the category of Site and Urban Planning, you indicate that the project site is located in the R-4 zoning district, between South Bayshore Drive and Biscayne Bay front. That's a mistake, isn't it? Mr. Luft: No. The course of action that we're talking about here is first a consideration of the future land use map change, which, if it is approved, and it was approved on first reading, then necessitates to comply with state law the implementation of a zoning district that matches that further land use high -density multifamily designation, and that would be R-4, so assuming that the R-4 is in place, because it would have to be for this project to be approved, that's where it's at. It's in an R-4 between Bayshore and the Bay. Mr. Lukacs: OK, so that's a basic assumption. Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: If the R-4 zoning fails, then -- Mr. Luft: Then we're back to G/I and -- Mr. Lukacs: -- and the limitations imposed under the text amendment of the G/I ordinance, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Lukacs: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Do you have any questions for Mr. Luft? Mr. Goggins: Yes, I do, sir. Patrick Goggins. Mr. Luft -- City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mr. Goggins: -- you just testified that the proposed projects are high-rise residential, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Goggins: You also testified previously that the proposed project has to conform with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; is that correct? Mr. Luft: The project -- I'm talking about the project now, and that was the term you used -- has to comply with the zoning, the land development regulations. Those regulations have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Goggins: And do those regulations allow for high-rise residential development in the City of Miami? Mr. Luft: R-4? Mr. Goggins: Does -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Goggins: -- the Comprehensive Plan allow for a high-rise development in the City of Miami? Mr. Luft: Yes, it does. Mr. Goggins: Where does it say that high-rise residential development should be taking place? Mr. Luft: In the Comp Plan, it says that-- in the context of G/I, Government/Institutional, the category that Mercy Hospital is, high-rise, high -density residential of a R-4 character is acceptable and, in fact, promoted. Mr. Goggins: Anywhere. Now, the -- but, in fact, the developer in this case is asking for a rezoning to R-4; is that correct? Mr. Luft: Because the Planning Department determined and they chose the G/I -- Mr. Goggins: I'm sorry. I thought that was a yes or no question. Was -- is -- the developer is asking for R-4 in this case, correct? Mr. Luft: To comply with the Planning Department's -- Mr. Goggins: And where does -- Mr. Luft: -- direction, yes. Mr. Goggins: -- the Comprehensive Code -- the Comprehensive Plan say that R-4 development should be taking place in the City? Mr. Luft: In connection with major regional centers of employment and activity, as far as creating a synergy of uses and residences, jobs, employment centers. It's a high -density nodal development concept that is consistent with inner cities and optimization of transportation systems. City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Goggins: I'm asking you for a physical location in the City. Does the Comprehensive Plan speak to physical locations in the City thatR-4 development should be taking place? Mr. Luft: The Comprehensive Plan speaks to principals about where these uses may be located, and I just described the -- one of those types of uses. The -- it is up to the future land use map and the constant updating and amendment of that to determine under conditions and changed conditions where that best applies, and in this case, we're looking at a property that hasn't been zoned R-4 for over 50 years and has migrated to a G/I category under 9,500 and 11,000, and is one of those places where the City has long recognized the ability to build high-rise, high -density at the site. Mr. Goggins: I'm asking about the Comprehensive Plan as it exists today. Does -- Mr. Luft: In the future land use map. Mr. Goggins: -- the Comprehensive Plan, as it exists today, speak to specific geographic locations where high-rise development should be taking place in the City ofMiami? Mr. Luft: On the future land use map, yes. Mr. Goggins: The plan itself does not speak to that, sir? Mr. Luft: The plan speaks to categories of use and relationships, and then, as a component of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a future land use map -- Mr. Goggins: Do you have --? Mr. Luft: -- and that map designates areas. Mr. Goggins: I'm sorry. Do you have a copy of the Comprehensive Plan there with you, sir? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Goggins: Would you please refer to page 20 of that Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Goggins: That speaks to high-rise single-family residential development, correct? Mr. Luft: High-rise single-family? Mr. Goggins: Yeah. Maybe you -- Mr. Luft: I don't know what that is. Mr. Goggins: -- have a different copy than I do. Let me refer you to the page that I have. Mr. Luft: Is that a new concept of development? You're talking about here? Mr. Goggins: Yeah. Mr. Luft: Yeah. The City -- it says high -density multifamily residential areas designated high -density multifamily allow structures to a maximum density of 150 units an acre. City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Goggins: Now, does that portion of the Comprehensive Plan speak to specific areas in the City where high-rise multifamily residential development should be taking place? Mr. Luft: This speaks to the nature of the category -- Mr. Goggins: On page 21 ? Mr. Luft: On page 20 on this book. Mr. Goggins: And on page 21 ? Mr. Luft: And on page 21, and then the map is the geographical location of those categories, which is specific. Mr. Goggins: Now, what I'm referring to in the Comprehensive Plan, and tell me if you disagree. The Comprehensive Plan refers to three specific geographic locations where high-rise multifamily residential development, or whatever you want to call it, three places in this City where it should be taking place. There is the Brickell/Omni area, the -- let me get to it here. Mr. Luft: Little Havana target area, Southeast Overtown/Park West. Mr. Goggins: Little Havana target area, Southeast Overtown/Park West, and Brickell/Omni and River quadrant. Is that in this -- City's Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Luft: Yes, but it's not what you said it was. Mr. Goggins: It's in the plan, correct? Mr. Luft: What it says is that you may go over 150 units an acre; in these three areas, 200 to 300 to 500 units an acre. Elsewhere in the R-4, you're at 150. Mr. Goggins: Now -- Mr. Luft: This is a special provision for those what are essentially redevelopment and urban core areas -- districts where higher densities are yet allowed. That doesn't say you can't build 150 elsewhere because you can. Mr. Goggins: Is the proposed project in one of these three neighborhoods -- Mr. Luft: No. Mr. Goggins: -- that are -- no, it's not. Mr. Luft: No. Mr. Goggins: OK Thank you. I'd like to cede the rest of my time to Mr. Cruz, who has some follow-up questions for you, Mr. Luft. Mr. Luft: Sure. Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 6 -- Mr. Fernandez: Again -- excuse me. The record needs to reflect your name, sir. You spoke without introducing your name. City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Goggins: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) previously. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, but every time you speak -- Mr. Goggins: Again, Patrick Goggins, offices at 777 Brickell Avenue. I represent Constantine, the Glencoe Neighborhood Association, andMr. Jason Block. Mr. Fernandez: And you're a registered lobbyist? Mr. Goggins: Yes, I am. Mr. Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Mr. Fernandez: Representing? Mr. Cruz: Representing the citizens and taxpayers ofMiami. Mr. Fernandez: Well, here is a case of an individual, and then you allot him what period of time, sir, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: Well, according to what we said at the beginning, it's two minutes. you're going to speak, you know, on your behalf -- Mr. Cruz: Well, I'm doing a cross-examination that I was ceded time by -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- If Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, if you allow the Rule of ceding -- you know, giving time up and that type of thing -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- then we need a mathematician besides a -- Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- clock keeper. Chairman Gonzalez: You know. Mr. Fernandez: It's up to the Chair how you may want to conduct this meeting -- Chairman Gonzalez: No, no. I -- Mr. Fernandez: -- but again -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- spoke very clearly. Persons speaking on their own behalf will have two minutes. Attorney representing entities, community associations, condos, you will have equal amount of time. You will have five minutes, OK, so -- Mr. Cruz: I'm speaking -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- I'm allowing you two minutes. Mr. Cruz: -- on behalf of the Morningside Civic Association. City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: If you want to ask a couple of questions -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- go ahead, couple of questions, you know. Mr. Fernandez: But if you represent someone, sir -- are you a registered lobbyist? Chairman Gonzalez: No, he's not. Mr. Cruz: No, sir, I'm not a registered lobbyist because I'm doing this pro bono, and if you're pro bono, you do not need to register as a lobbyist. I'm representing the Morningside Civic Association. Chairman Gonzalez: What about the --? We tend to complicate things more and more and more. What about the disclosure and the --? Mr. Fernandez: Well, again, you haven't gotten to that portion of the meeting where, other than the applicant gets to make their presentation. We're still at that portion of the meeting where attorneys are cross-examining the witnesses -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- of the applicant. IfMr. Cruz, you know, if you want to be generous and allow him the opportunity to ask a question or two, or for two minutes, as a cross-examiner of the applicant's position, it's a generosity of the Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: But my problem is that these two attorneys have -- are representing groups or condos or organizations, OK. He's not representing anybody but himself. If he wants to ask - - you're saying no. Who are you representing? We asked you a question. You said the citizens of the City ofMiami. You know, you could be representing the citizens of the County or the citizens of the United States. I mean, that doesn't answer my question. You know, we're debating an issue here where we have people for the developer, and we have this attorney representing -- they've been hired to represent certain groups. Ifyou want to speak as part of the record, I will allow you two minutes, as every other person from the general public. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chair, can I ask the Chairman an indulgence, to give him three minutes of questioning? He's here on his on behalf he's here on behalf ofMorningside. Chairman Gonzalez: But what does Morningside have to do with Mercy --? Commissioner Sarnoff They're in Disfrict 2? Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Commissioner Sarnoff They're in Disfrict 2. Mr. Cruz: This could potentially set a precedent that could affect us, sir. Mr. Fernandez: So the -- Chairman Gonzalez: Turn the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) off now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You guys want a barn meeting, we'll have a barn meeting. City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Fernandez: -- so, again, this is not the two or three minutes that he will use to make his presentation as an individual. These are two or three additional minutes that he wants to use to cross-examine because in essence, we're still in the applicant's case. Chairman Gonzalez: Then he will end up having five minutes, and the rest of the public will end Mr. Fernandez: You're generous, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: -- up having two. Is that fair? Mr. Cruz: Thank you, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't think so -- Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chair -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- but in -- Ms. Dougherty: -- I have to object to this, any citizen being able to come up here and cross-examine our witnesses. Morningside Civic Association, I would ask them, did they take a position formally on this? Do you have a -- Mr. Cruz: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: -- resolution from them? Mr. Cruz: Yes, ma'am. We took a vote at a board of director's meeting; reason being that we have G/I property that abuts our neighborhood, and we would not like this legal precedent to be set. Ms. Dougherty: Well, again, I would object to it based on standing. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, and in answer to my colleague -- Commissioner Sarnoff I'm asking for three minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- who asked for three minutes, I'm going to allow three minutes. Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Due to you. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Mr. Luft, I'd like to cross-examine you, ifI may. Mr. Luft: Yes, sir. Mr. Cruz: At the January 25 hearing and again repeatedly today, your expert testimony was that regarding compatibility and scale -- Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Cruz: -- the standard in Miami's Code that is used to determine compatibility and scale is Section 907.3.2; is that correct? City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: That's my contention. Commissioner Sarnoff Why don't you just continue? Mr. Cruz: Mr. Luft, could you look at 907.3.2, and could you show us where the words "compatibility" or the words "scale" appears in the text of that law? Would you -- Mr. Luft: This is -- Mr. Cruz: -- agree that neither the word "compatibility" or the word "scale" appears in 907.3.2? Mr. Luft: I would agree that it doesn't appear. Mr. Cruz: OK. How many times does the word "height setback" appear in 907.3.2? Mr. Luft: You've highlighted it four times. Mr. Cruz: OK. Would you agree that 907.3.2 is actually describing a height setback? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mr. Cruz: Would you agree that a height setback is not the same thing as compatibility and scale? Mr. Luft: No, I would not agree. Mr. Cruz: OK. Can you think of any reason why the author of 907.3.2, if he or she had intended it to be an objective standard of compatibility and scale, as you have mentioned, did not use either the word "compatibility" or the word "scale" in writing that law? Mr. Luft: Because compatibility is a general term' height is a precisely defined and measurable term under the definitions of the Code. We can determine exactly what height is because the Code tells you how to measure it, so to be precise in terms of the legal document that can be enforced and deemed a standard, there has to be language that allows you to determine what it is. Scale is not defined in terms of how much or how little; it's a general term. Scale of buildings literally translates to height; how tall a building is relative to another building of a different height. Mr. Cruz: But, again -- Mr. Luft: That's what scale is. Mr. Cruz: -- the word scale does not appear anywhere in 907.3.2 nor the word compatibility? Mr. Luft: No, but that's what this does. Mr. Cruz: Lastly, Mr. Luft, would you agree that 907.3.2 makes absolutely no direct statement, whatsoever, that a building that complies with that height setback also complies with compatibility and scale? Mr. Luft: As I stated at the first hearing, absent any other standard, this is the regulation that has to be construed as applicable to any kind of legal definition or determination that can be applied consistently, fairly, and across many different situations as a standard. That's what a standard is. There's nothing else in the Code that ties down this term compatible or harmonious City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 or scale, leaving it open to whatever people want it to mean. That's not the way the police powers or regulation of zoning works. If it did, the good people here today, many of whom live in two stories single-family homes, or many of them live in one-story single-family homes, could come before this Commission and object that somebody's building a 35-foot high, two-story structure next to them, three times higher than their home of 11 feet, and it is out of scale, and it's incompatible. They could do that, and in fact, that's what we call `11dcMansions, " so people come in here and say, you can't do that. However, if they happen to be the owner of that single-family lot, and the Code says you can go two stories and 35-foot high, that owner is going to say, fine. If you don't like my -- the size of my building, then change the rule. My building, according to your rules, is compatible and it's in scale because that's what the law says, and that's exactly what this Code says, and that's exactly why I said this building meets your standard. That's the only way you can fairly and equitably apply these things. You can't take a vote of the neighbors and say, well, I don't know. I don't think you should build a two-story building. Mine is a one story; he has to build one story. Mr. Cruz: So, in closing, Mr. Luft -- Mr. Luft: You can't do that. Mr. Cruz: -- neither words scale nor compatibility appears in 907.3.2, correct? Mr. Luft: Nope. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Mr. Luft: Height. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. Ms. Lewis: One more. Chairman Gonzalez: What now? Ms. Lewis: Lynn Lewis, 1390 Brickell Avenue, on behalf of the Vizcayans. Mr. Luft? Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry; you're going to have to speak into the mike, please. Ms. Lewis: Lynn Lewis, 1390 Brickell Avenue -- Chairman Gonzalez: You're also going to do cross-examination? Ms. Lewis: I'll be briefer than anyone. Chairman Gonzalez: How brief? Let me ask you, how brief? It's going to be before 7 o'clock or Ms. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I'm under the impression, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you said that the counsel for opponents would have about five minutes to cross-examine. Chairman Gonzalez: Who are you representing? Ms. Lewis: The Vizcayans. Chairman Gonzalez: The Vizcayans. You will have your time to do your presentation, and you will have five minutes. City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. When you do your presentation -- after you do your presentation, if you want to do some cross-examination ofMr. Luft, then you do your cross-examination, but I can't be jumping back and forth because -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- then I'm going to lose frack of what I'm doing here. Mr. Fernandez: -- in your brief absence, then -acting Chairman Sanchez allowed the cross-examination of the applicant's experts so that the applicant's case could then be concluded. I understand Ms. Lewis wants to cross-examine one expert of the applicant, and you should allow, just like you graciously exceeded and gave Mr. Cruz three minutes, I suggest that you also give Ms. Lewis -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let me ask this question, so I know what I'm doing -- what I'm working with. How many attorneys are going to do -- be doing cross-examination of the expert witnesses on the developer's side? I see none. Ms. Lewis: I believe, Mr. Chairman, I'm the last one. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. How many minutes do you need to do your cross-examination? Ms. Lewis: I have three or four questions. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Lewis: Mr. Luft, you answered Commissioner Spence Jones, who asked questions with regard to job creation, correct? Mr. Luft: Yes. Ms. Lewis: And I'm sure you're familiar with the Related and Mercy Hospital website on this project; is that correct? Mr. Luft: No, I'm not. Ms. Lewis: OK I'll tell you that it says that the project will involve third and fourth and fifth homes, not primary residences, not even secondary residences, but third, fourth, and fifth homes, and I wondered how that would impact your opinion as to job creation if what these homes are to be is third, fourth, and fifth homes? Mr. Luft: As I told Commissioner Sarnoff, as a planner, if it's a residence with a CO, you have to assume that, at some point in time, someone can live there year-round, or a succession of tenants, maybe relatives, can take turns living there. I have no control over how long someone stays in there. If the developer wants to present it as second or third homes with partial occupancy, then that's his, you know, experience in marketing and his best guess, but as a planner, ultimately, I assume that all residences that are built as -- under the residential Code of the City, not as hotels or something else, will be occupied eventually, and that has been the history of these developments. It's the history of South Beach; it's been the history on Brickell, and it probably will be here if this was to be built. Ms. Lewis: You've said that one of the benefits of this project -- and I believe I'm paraphrasing you at least -- is that it places a center of activity close to services and jobs. Would you City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 elaborate that, please? Mr. Luft: Yes. Mercy, as you know, employs a great many highly skilled technicians, physicians, who are very wealthy -- I mean, very highly paid. The experience has been -- and I've been involved in a number of these projects in Coral Springs next to their hospital; in Lee County, where I'm on the Smart Growth Committee -- we're finding that people who have the chance to live next to or near their place of employment find that as an additional incentive or attractor for a residence that meets their needs. Any time you can place a concentration of residential next to major employment centers, which Mercy certainly is, you invite that kind synergy of use. It's in the City's interest to try to shorten the distances between residences, places of employment, and services, and of course, this is a major center of health services. I did a study for Mazula, Montana, which is a major medical center for the state ofMontana, and we had an enormous demand for housing next to the medical center; people who wanted permanent residences in proximity to that to deal with family health issues. That's another reason for trying to marry residences and services. Ms. Lewis: So that the doctors and nurses and X-ray technicians and the medical service community that works at Mercy Hospital, you think, would be the likely -- potentially, the likely residents of this --? Mr. Luft: That would be one group, yes. Ms. Lewis: I see, OK. Mr. Luft: I can tell you the number of the physicians at Mercy live at Bay Point and -- or Bay Heights and in the Natoma area because I know them personally -- Ms. Lewis: Right. Mr. Luft: -- and they find that kinds of proximate relation to Mercy very convenient, and those homes are at least as valuable as the residences that would be at this place. Ms. Lewis: Would it be -- in your opinion, is there any property that is zoned G/I in the City of Miami that -- is it your opinion that every G/I property in the City ofMiami would support a 410 foot high building; every G/I property by virtue of its zoning classification? Mr. Luft: Well, what you're asking me is whether all G/I properties are large enough to contain both the institutional center of employment and activity and have a residual piece of land that could be developed for the high density? As the Department has said, if you want to go into a major high -density residential in conjunction with that complex, then you need to change the zoning. That was the result of the Grovenor project, OK. In fact, many of the G/I properties in the City are not large enough to function for what they're currently used for, Coconut Grove Playhouse being an example, and maintain that function as a G/I, and then, in addition, add an R-4 high -density development to it, so no, it would not apply in those cases. Many of them are too small. Ms. Lewis: And what would be the, in your opinion, in your professional opinion, minimum size of a G/I district zoned property that would be able to support a 410 foot high building? Mr. Luft: Well, there are actually rather small properties. Of course, that's the SD-6. That's a different district, different intensity altogether. For a 1.72 FAR -- base FAR at a high -density, you'd probably need four or five acres. Ms. Lewis: OK, so then G/I tracts in the City ofMiami, at a minimum of four acres, could have - - could support a building of 410 foot? City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Luft: No, no. What -- the lesson from the Grovenor was, if the G/I use goes away, the naval reserve center disappeared; the federal government abandoned that use. If the G/I doesn't exist, the government/institutional use is abandoned, then it's no longer G/I,• it has to go to something else, so you can't just say wipe out the G/I use and then drop an R-4 on it automatically. The reason it makes sense at Mercy is because the 80-acre complex of LaSalle, Ermita de la Caridad, Mercy, and Carolyn Manor, and the various other ancillary office and support facilities there remains intact. This is essentially a vacant parking lot parcel. It is very much ancillary to and supportive of that complex, that regional complex. In most other places, you would literally have to dispose of the G/I use in order to translate it into R-4, and that's -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me -- Luft: -- why it wouldn't work in those places. It would work in the Jackson Hospital complex, and that's why, in the Miami River Plan, at the southern edge of that, there was a major recommendation by the River Committee and the Planning Group for the hospital to put high -density residential as a part of the G/I on the south edge of that government center, complex medical center because they need that kind of high -density housing there. Chairman Gonzalez: -- inform you that you have consumed eight minutes already. Ms. Lewis: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: I know you, you know, get involved and you lose track of time, but it's been eight minutes. Ms. Lewis: I'm through. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. All right. Now it's time for you presentation, I believe. Mr. Fernandez: Again, Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Clerk how much time did the applicant take? Commissioner Sarnoff Forty-two minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: I heard that it was 45 minutes, right? Commissioner Sarnoff Forty-two. Ms. Thompson: Forty-seven minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: Forty-seven minutes. I don't want to cut you two minutes. Mr. Fernandez: So that means that -- Chairman Gonzalez: Forty-eight minutes. Let me give you one minute. Mr. Fernandez: -- so that the opponents then would have a total -- Chairman Gonzalez: They will have 47 minutes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: More or less. If they go two minutes over, I'm not going to -- City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Fernandez: And for the record, that's not each opponent; that's -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- the combined opponent group. Chairman Gonzalez: The combined opponent group, right, the opposition, because if -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: What? Chairman Gonzalez: -- we allow 47 minutes to each opponent, then we'll -- the public won't be able to -- we're leaving at 10:00 o'clock; it's that simple. We're closing the meeting at 10 o'clock. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out something. Jack Luft is going to have to leave. He's actually been sick, and he's on antibiotics, and he's going to be leaving, so if there's any questions that you would like to ask or the opponents would like to ask, I'd like to excuse him at this time. Chairman Gonzalez: Any other questions before the witness leave? No more questions. All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're excused. Chairman Gonzalez: You're excused. Ms. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, you've said that all combined opponents, with counsel, of which there are three of us -- Chairman Gonzalez: Three of you. Ms. Lewis: -- all must share 47 minutes? Mr. Chairman, we have -- on behalf of the Vizcayans - - this is Lynn Lewis -- we've had witnesses fly in and are prepared to make -- Chairman Gonzalez: And you're going to present all your witnesses within the 47 minutes, right? Ms. Lewis: Well, exceptHr. Lukacs has his witnesses, who will take a certain amount of time also. It doesn't seem reasonable to allow the applicant to have 47 minutes, but to deny the opponents, with counsel, with witnesses, who are prepared, who have been working for about four weeks solid, to be limited to one-third of the time that the applicant was given. Chairman Gonzalez: I'll tell you what. Do you mind taking 45 minutes each? Ms. Lewis: I'll -- that'll be fine with us. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Forty-five minutes each? Chairman Gonzalez: What about you two? Unidentified Speaker: I will not take that long. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Forty-five minutes each. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, an hour and a half. City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: How many --? Unidentified Speaker: No, no, no. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Out of curiosity, how many -- Chairman Gonzalez: Three. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- will be speaking on the issue? How many --? Chairman Gonzalez: Three hours. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Raise your hand if you're going to be speaking on the issue. Chairman Gonzalez: It will be three hours, right? Mr. Fernandez: Again, Mr. Chairman, from the prospective of notions offairness and due process to allow everyone to express themselves, it is up to the Chair and, of course, with the consensus of the rest of your colleagues, to impose reasonable time limitations. The opposition, for lack of a better word, the Vizcayans, the property owners, I don't have the privilege of knowing all of them, you know, if you limit it to -- if you allow them each to have 47 minutes, then my suggestion to you is that you're putting the applicant in a predicament because then you would need to accord her according to the, you know, time you have allotted, so therefore, notions offairness dictate that they get to make their case, they get to make their presentation, but certainly not consume each, individually, the 47 minutes that applicant did her entire presentation in. Mr. Goggins: Pafrick Goggins, again for Constantine. I would just point out that 47 minutes was -- it started at 2 -- at what, 2 p.m., 2:30? It's now 5:30. The rest of the time was taken up with cross-examine and -- cross-examination items that we're entitled to do. The developer will have the opportunity to cross-examine our witnesses, as he should, and I am happy to limit myself to the time allotted, and I will -- and the cross-examination will take however much time it takes; it's up to the Chair, of course, but I believe, in fairness, that the time you suggested of 47 minutes is fair. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let me intervened here for a minute. Pafrick, how much time do you think you're going to need? Mr. Goggins: Realistically? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Realistic. Mr. Goggins: In my presentation, I have one witness; it won't take 15 minutes -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. That's good. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Goggins: -- you know. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Lukacs, what -- how much time are you going to need, sir? And I realize you're going to -- you have to build your record, which is fine. Mr. Lukacs: I have those preliminary motions to address that I spoke to when we first met this City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 afternoon. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're going to put those -- aren't they on the record already? Mr. Lukacs: Well, actually, I was told by the City Attorney that I needed to wait to bring those motions up until it was my time to speak. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How much time are you going to need, Mr. Lukacs? Mr. Lukacs: Ten minutes on that issue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: On that issue alone. Mr. Lukacs: Ten minutes on my presentation, and then I have two expert witnesses that I'll be presenting. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, so we're looking at -- ma'am, how much time are you going to need? Let's see if we could establish some order here, OK. Ms. Lewis: Sure. I appreciate it, Commissioner Sanchez. We need about 45 minutes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You need 45 minutes? Ms. Lewis: Yes, sir. You've heard a lot about Vizcaya this afternoon. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Chair. Commissioner Sarnoff We're looking at about an hour and a half, is what we're looking at, if they expedite and get started, which means that'll put us at 7 o'clock -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff -- and then we can limit everybody to their two minutes, and we should be done around 8:30, 9 o'clock. Chairman Gonzalez: Then we need to limit everyone to two minutes. Commissioner Sarnoff Two minutes, I agree, I agree. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, let's go. Fifteen minutes, thirty minutes, and forty-five minutes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Convince me. Mr. Lukacs: First and foremost, I have a few procedural matters that I need to address. The motions I'm going to make really go to the integrity of the process itself and the need for there to be full disclosures. Commissioner Sanchez, with due respect, I've been informed that your spouse, Mrs. Sanchez, works for the firm of Greenberg Traurig, in their accounting department. That has never been made a part of this record, and on that basis, I'd like for you to explain the relationship between Mrs. Sanchez and Greenberg Traurig, because if there is a conflict, then the next step would have to be a motion for you to recuse yourself from these proceedings. City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Lukacs, I knew you were going to bring that up. For the record, the attorney could state that there's already been an opinion asked where my -- there's no conflict of interest. My wife has been working for Greenberg for about 12 years. She works for the Finance Department. No direction, whatsoever, to any of the attorneys that have come before me, so therefore, there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Lukacs: Thank you very much. Mr. City Attorney, it's also my understanding, through public records requests, that the firm of Greenberg Traurig is on the approved vendors list for the City ofMiami and actually renders legal services to the City; is that true? Mr. Fernandez: I believe that there is a case that is maybe 12, 15 years in the making where Greenberg Traurig had some special representation for the City. Mr. Lukacs: Is Greenberg Traurig currently on the approved vendors list and rendering legal services to the City ofMiami at this time? Mr. Fernandez: There's no such approved list. Mr. Lukacs: All right. Well, I'm confused. I sent a public records request to the City ofMiami - - actually, a lot of public records requests -- and the one that I received back from the City is that there is a vendor's list -- there is an approved vendor's list, and Greenberg Traurig was listed as one of those firms. Mr. Fernandez: To vend what? Mr. Lukacs: Legal services. Mr. Fernandez: Not in two and a halfyears that I have been here, no. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Mr. Fernandez: I don't know what list you're referring to or what document. Mr. Lukacs: Well, you received a copy of the public records requests that were distributed, each of the Commissioners did as well; the Mayor, City Clerk's Office, and I received responses to some of those public records requests, specifically from Commissioner Spence -Jones, Commissioner Regalado, response by the City Clerk's Office, and also by the Employee Relations Board, and a number of other agencies, but there's been a lot. Your office received copies of everything, Mr. Fernandez. Mr. Fernandez: Well, I can tell you that there is no conflict of interest, that I know of. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anything else, counselor, you want -- Mr. Lukacs: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to put on the record? Mr. Lukacs: Yes, I do. I've become aware that there has been communications by a -- I'm going to say a zoning consultant, or lobbyist, for a lack of a better word, by the name of Rosario Kennedy, and it's my understanding that Ms. Kennedy has spoken to Commissioners regarding this project. I have done public records requests to the City Clerk, and the Clerk has provided me with a copy of the list of registered lobbyists. Ms. Kennedy is a registered lobbyist. She registered in 2006 on behalf of The Related Companies, and she registered specifically for the 300 Grove Bay Residences project, but I'd like to present to you is a responsive e-mail City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 (electronic mail) that I received from Commissioner Regalado in response to my latest public records request. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is this the only Commissioner documents that you have that have been in contact with you pertaining to the case? Mr. Lukacs: I'm sorry; the question was, sir? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let me read the e-mail first. Mr. Lukacs: While the Commissioners read this e-mail, let me describe what it is. I had sent back earlier on in the year a public records request to all of the Commissioners asking for any documentation or public records that would reveal communications had with the Commissioners on this particular project. I followed up on March 12 with a letter, or an e-mail, to all the Commissioners just reiterating my prior requests of January 30, 2007, which I had not received a response to. In response to that, I received an e-mail, most respectfully, from Commissioner Regalado, indicating as follows: Mr. Lukacs, I apologize for the delayed response. Other than the regularly scheduled briefing that I received from the Administration prior to the City Commission meetings, I have not received any documentation, with the exception of one single package of documents that was initially delivered by Ms. Rosario Kennedy, immediately picked up by Ms. Kennedy and then delivered again by Ms. Kennedy because the package of documents were on file with the City Clerk's Office, based on the explanation my administrative assistant received. Therefore, this information is in the documentation that I have already received from the City Clerk. The City Clerk's files indicate that Hs. Kennedy, on the City ofMiami lobbyist list of 2006, which is included in your packet, has registered as a lobbyist for The Related Companies of Florida, LLC, Grand Bay Residences. In addition to the responsive documentation that I received, I also received copies from Commissioner Spence -Jones office indicating communication logs with her office. Specifically, on January 16, approximately ten days before the first reading, and our hearing was January 25, Rosario Kennedy, the lobbyist for The Related Group, stopped by, and there is a note -- message for Mr. Koteles. Mr. Koteles, or KotelesAlexander, is the senior policy advisor, as I understand it, for Commissioner Spence -Jones; 10:45 a.m., Rosario Kennedy, reference: came by to see you regarding Mercy. The next log was on January 22, three days before the first reading. There is also another indication. Message for KotelesAlexander. Rosario Kennedy called. Please give me a call personal, with a cell phone. It has come to my attention that Hs. Kennedy has been actively lobbying for this project, and I have to bring that to the attention of the Commission because the Commission has, on a number of occasions, mentioned their awareness and advices that they get regarding the Jennings Rule. I would like to address to Commissioner Spence Jones and to any other Commissioners who may have been contacted by Ms. Kennedy to disclose to us the extent of those communications, given the fact that when we have hearings of this nature, as I'm sure you agree, we need to address the issues here in public, not behind closed doors, to preserve the integrity of this progress -- process. Commissioner. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Before anyone, you read my e-mail. Mr. Lukacs: Which was, most respectfully, thank you very much, one that was very well received. Commissioner Regalado: Are you saying that there was any closed -door meeting? Mr. Lukacs: No, sir. City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Lukacs: No. What -- Commissioner Regalado: In my case. Mr. Lukacs: -- I'm doing is, the acknowledgement that you gave me, Commissioner Regalado, back on March 15, 2007, verified that Hs. Kennedy, who is a lobbyist, has been visiting Commissioners' offices dropping off materials. I have verification from Commissioner Spence -Jones records that Hs. Kennedy has visited her office as well on this subject, days before the first reading. I have learned, as well, the scuttlebut, if you will -- Commissioner Regalado: But you are aware that my office never read -- Mr. Lukacs: I am. Commissioner Regalado: -- or discussed -- Mr. Lukacs: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: -- so that document, until it was given to the City Clerk and then through the City Clerk brought back. That -- Mr. Lukacs: Absolutely. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I just want also -- Mr. Lukacs: Fully aware. Commissioner Regalado: I just want to be clear on that because, you know, I don't -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: -- again, because of how delicate this situation is. Let me give counsel an advice, to you, my client. The allegations that have been made by this speaker, ifI heard them correctly, failed attempt to communicate delivery of items, visit to office, unanswered phone calls -- that is, in essence, a summary of what he has said -- by a registered lobbyist does not violate Jennings. My advice to you, the gentleman has put it on the record. The record is what the record is, but my advice to you is not to engage further this -- what's the word? -- baiting, taunting, frying to get you to say something. You need not categorically state it, but as Commissioner Regalado did, if you feel compelled to make it absolutely clear that none of you, none of your offices has violated Jennings, feel free to do so. It is not necessary, albeit. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, let me just say it, because I seem to recollect having responded to a public records request, not with very many documents, butt have never been contacted by anyone, The Related Group, Rosario Kennedy, from anyone regarding this, and I have no document to turn over to you to show that, so I just want the record to be clear on that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm not even going to waste my time. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. I'm -- I would like to definitely respond -- Mr. Lukacs: Please. City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- if you don't mind, Mr. City Attorney. First of all, I want you to be very clear on this issue. This is my phone log from our office and people call all the time. That doesn't mean that I sit down and have a discussion with them about any items that are coming in front of me. I'm very clear. Even if they decide to even try to cross the line, I'm very clear that I don't have any type of discussions at all about any items that's coming in front of me, so just because they call the office and have a conversation or leave a message for staff member within the office, that does not mean that there's a discussion being had with me, nor my staff regarding the issue, so I just want to be -- want you to understand that. Mr. Lukacs: I understand. Do I understand your statement, Commissioner, that Rosario Kennedy did not meet with you? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, no, not at all, not regarding any Mercy related items, at all. Mr. Fernandez: Now, again, I would recommend to the Chair and to you that you need not subject yourself -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Mr. Fernandez: -- to cross-examination; you're not the applicant, and by the statements that I have made directly addressing his concerns, that suffices for the record. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, is that it, or do you -- Mr. Lukacs: That's it for now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- want to know what I had for lunch today? Mr. Lukacs: Excuse me? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is that it? Mr. Lukacs: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is John Lukacs, again on behalf of Grove Isle Association, Inc., which oppose this, The Relate Companies' project. I'm also here on behalf of the Glencoe Neighborhood Association. Neither Mercy Hospital nor the applicant, The Related Group, are entitled to the rezoning as a matter of law and a matter of fact. The applicants are not entitled to a rezoning of the property because there is no legitimate public purpose in maintaining the existing zoning classification. The proposed rezoning effectively invalidates the rights and protections afforded by the 2004 text amendment to the G/I zoning ordinance. The protections that were adopted by you for the benefit of Grove Isle and every other citizen of the City ofMiami, Grove Isle's interests are protected by the zoning code, the development regulations, and the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, all of which have been intended by you to protect the quality of the life within the City ofMiami. Mercy Hospital and The Related Group are attempting to do indirectly what the City Commission said by ordinance already that it cannot be done directly. As we discussed at the hearing on January 25, on the first reading of the applicant's rezoning request, the City Commission has already determined that this property can only be developed for non governmental, non -institutional type uses to a density and an intensity of the least abutting zoning district. Stated differently, it can only be used according to the regulations of the most restrictive zoning category that it abuts. This City Commissioner, and you, Commissioner Sanchez; you, Commissioner Gonzalez, and City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Regalado, were three of the four Commissioners who decided that an amendment of the G/I zoning ordinance was needed to prevent certain uses from being built on G/I-zoned property when those properties ceased to be used for government uses. When did you identify that need? And why did you decide to adopt this text amendment? These are very, very important questions from the standpoint of the enforceability of this ordinance and the basis for the denial of the pending rezoning application. You identified the need in 2003 and 2004, during the discussions and the debate surrounding the Grovenor House project, and you adopted the text amendment that was proposed to you by your Planning Advisory Board and your Planning Department. During the course of the many hearings held on the Grovenor, there were, as you will recall, numerous objections made, much like we hear today, to the magnitude and the height of the non governmental project that was being proposed. The debate focused on, and I use this term very carefully, protecting against incompatible development on G/I zoned property that ceases to be used or stops being used for those types of purposes, from the standpoint of the affects and the impacts that it would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. It was because of those discussions and the debate that you determined that there was a legitimate public purpose in amending the G/I ordinance to prevent the overdevelopment of G/I-zoned property in the low -density neighborhoods for the protection, and again, protection of the public. During the course of those hearings, Lourdes Slazyk testified, in response to questioning by Ms. Dougherty, which coincidentally represented Hugo Colombo, which was the developer of the Grovenor, and if the City Commission wanted to again protect, for instance, Ransom Everglades or any other G/I institutional zoned property, it could amend the zoning ordinance and add more criteria to, again, protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City. In response to further questioning, Ms. Slazyk reiterated that the City could amend its zoning ordinance and adopt a regulation to protect against high-rise development on G/I zoned property if G/I institutional property was sold, so it wasn't just a question in the discussions and debate on Grovenor as to whether or not it simply ceases to have a use; there was also a contemplation that G/I properties could be sold, much like St. Peter & Paul in your disfrict, Commissioner, or any other G/I zoned property in anybody else's district. The concept is it can stop being used for those purposes, it can be sold to the private sector, and it can be developed, and it was that type of an abuse that was being addressed by you. As a result of the Grovenor, the text amendment for the G/I zoning ordinance was adopted. On or about June 2, 2004, the Planning Department recommended to the Planning Advisory Board this amendment to the G/I institutional zoning ordinance, 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. According to the Planning and Zoning Department, this could be accomplished by specifying that when G/I zoned property is not going to be used for government purposes, including accessory uses, it can only be used for the less intense abutting district. The City ofMiami Planning Advisory Board consider this change to be in the best interest of the citizens ofMiami. It was approved by the Planning and Zoning Department's recommendation, and it was unanimously recommended for approval to the Commission. A copy of the Planning fact sheet is included as Exhibit B in the exhibits that you have before you. The first reading of the proposed text amendment was held on July 22, 2004. At Tab 2 are the meeting minutes for that hearing. On Page 2, Lourdes Slazyk, the assistant director in Planning and Zoning, said the following: "We are up to PZ.42 now. PZ.42 is a text amendment to the Zoning ordinance related to the G/I, Government/Institutional, disfrict. This is an amendment that would require that when a government or institutional use ceases to exist on a property and that property would only then be able to be used as for the most restrictive zoning around it. This is, we believe, to be a very good ordinance. It affords -- or offers, rather -- some protection, again protection, to the neighborhoods to have G/I zoning for things like schools and churches and other institutional pubic facility uses." This again, as I mentioned, was recommended for approval. Again, Ms. Slazyk commented, "And actually, we had a lot of help from the community when we were phrasing that ordinance, as it went through the PAB (Planning Advisory Board). This was a continuance at PAB to help phrase it in a way that everybody was comfortable with, but just for the record, what the ordinance does, in a nutshell, it says, if you have G/I, government/institution, zoned property with a government or institutional use and it ceases to be used for that government or institutional use, you can only City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 use it according to the regulations of the most restrictive zoning category that it touches, so it is protection." Again, the word protection, and that's what this City Commission considered when they discussed and debated the adoption of the text amendment in 2004. This continued to the September 27 hearing before the Commission on second reading, and at the second reading, Commissioner Winton, who actually moved for approval of this, stated as follows: "I think it's very important that you put on the record right now, so it's on NET-9, a repeat of what we did last time, and that is, explaining what's going on here. Because this ordinance that we're passing solves a huge problem for a lot of people out there who are very skeptical of the way we handle some Planning and Zoning items, particularly G/I zoning, so would you put on the record that we're curing what many people consider to be a major defect in the Code, and we're curing it with this move?" Ms. Slazyk responded, "Correct. Where -- what we have is throughout the City, we have G/I zoning scattered in R-1 and R-2 single-family duplex and other residential districts. They're in those districts because there's either schools or churches or some other government or institutional use. The big fear is that what happens when a school or church closes, and you got this G/I zoning in the middle of the neighborhood, well, G/I zoning is very similar to office zoning in that it allows some pretty substantial height and density. What this ordinance says is that once the G/I property ceases to be used for school or church, it can only be used as per the least intense abutting district. Therefore, if a church or school goes away from a G/I zoned property in a single-family neighborhood, the property may only be used for single family use because that's the least abutting, the least intense abutting district, and so this is a major cure for our residential districts, the fear of what G/I could bring." That's what we're faced with here today. For the record, I have filed a copy of the binder, which each of the Commissioners have, and I have also a full transcript of the Grovenor meeting hearing minutes, which I'm going to offer into the record and make part of our presentation. It is apparent from the background and analysis that was done by the Planning Department that the Planning Department and the City Commission were very much concerned with the character of the abutting neighborhoods. Based on the underlying rationale to protect against and prevent incompatible uses from occurring in low -density neighborhoods when G/I property ceases to be used for those purposes, the City Commission expressly limited the maximum intensity of residential uses on Mer -- I'm sorry; the media room's not picking up on the PowerPoint presentation. Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's heading there now. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Sorry for the pause. I'll continue. Based upon the underlying rationale to protect and prevent against these incompatible uses, what you did was you adopted this text amendment, which limited the intensity itself of the residential uses on Mercy. Intensity was used, and that's what we're looking at here with this proposed project by The Related Companies. This is much more intense than anything that surrounds this property, despite Mr. Luft's comments that you've got a hospital there that can actually build more intense uses some time in the future. By its application to rezone the subject property, the Related Group is asking the City to absolutely waive the intensity limitations imposed by the September 27 -- here we go - - by its application to rezone the property, the Related Company [sic] is asking the City Commission to waive the intensity limitations imposed by the September 27, 2004 text amendment. In direct contravention of the rights and the protections that you afforded the citizens of the City ofMiami -- that's fine. Thank you -- through the adoption of this amendment. To do so would grant The Related Group a special privilege and constitute spot zoning, where no lawful basis for the same exists. Commissioners, this is not the very first time that you dealt with the change in zoning of a G/I property. In fact, in 1998, the City ofMiami disposed of approximately 14 acres of land, formerly known as Bobby Maduro Stadium. The City rezoned it from G/I to R-3, based upon the analysis and recommendation of the Planning Department. Therein, the Planning Department found as follows, and this is included at Tab 5 of your notebook. If anyone is interested, it's in Tab 5 of your notebook. It states: It is found that the subject property has R-3 multifamily medium density residential zoning designation immediately adjacent to the northwest. The Planning Department also found that the proposed change will allow the subject property to be developed at a moderate level of new residential use, which will City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 provide opportunities for it contemplate -- or compliment, rather, the immediately adjacent neighborhood. The Planning Department, for some reason, handled the Bobby Maduro Stadium rezoning differently than the Mercy rezoning. In both cases, the Planning Department provided an analysis for the change of zoning, but the Bobby Maduro property and the Mercy property are G/I zoned. Both are located adjacent to low- to medium -density residential neighborhoods. Did the Planning Department do the same analysis? Yeah. Did they arrive at the same conclusions, same recommendations? No. In the Bobby Maduro case, it was noteworthy for the Planning Department to consider the adjacency of the R-3 zoned property as a basis for its analysis. It was also noteworthy that the Planning Department observed that a change to a similar zoning density and intensity would compliment the immediate adjacent neighborhood. To the contrary, however, in analyzing the Mercy/Related Company, the analysis that was done by the Planning Department didn't say anything about the adjacent R-3, R-1 zoning districts. What it said was - is "We will recommend this change because it provides greater flexibility to the developer." What developer wouldn't want to have greater flexibility in developing their property? If there is a very clear indication here from your Planning Department that it had absolutely no reasonable justification, no underlying rationale whatsoever in recommending to you that this R-4 rezoning request be granted. In fact, on April 4, 2006, the Planning Department, by and through the Urban Design and Land Development Divisions, went ahead and analyzed this project, and what the Planning Department said was, "The change of zoning of this property from G/I to R-4 essentially results in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions in this area. The FAR bonuses in the application further exacerbate the situation. 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 is R-1 zoning." This application was over on April 4, 2006. However, that analysis changed. Why did the Planning Department go from April 4, 2006 to its analysis of recommending a change of zoning now, an up -zoning, if you will, to R-4? Well, on April 4, 2006, the City Manager of the City ofMiami was Joe Arriola. The Assistant City Manager, chief of Operations, was Alicia Cuervo-Schreiber. The director of Planning for the City ofMiami at that time was Ana Gelabert-Sanchez. At all times Mr. Thompson, Bill Thompson, of The Related Companies, was the vice president and the project executive for The Related Group. On April 18, Assistant City Manager, Alicia Schreiber, requested that Planning Director Sanchez contact Mr. Thompson at The Related Company [sic] about his project related to "questions and concerns" regarding the pre -application meeting date, which has not yet been set, and his deadline for a large-scale submission by May. Ms. Gelabert was asked by Ms. Cuervo to contact Mr. Thompson by the end of the day. She was also asked to call Ms. Schreiber thereafter to brief her on the meeting because the Assistant City Manager, Cuervo-Schreiber, and Mr. Arriola had a meeting with Mr. Thompson the following morning. On April 20, the day after that meeting, there was a meeting between The Related Company [sic] representatives and the Planning Department, Mr. Wolford, and also signing in for Alicia Cuervo-Schreiber was Mr. Wolford again. In attendance at this meeting was Ms. Schreiber, Mr. Wolford, seven representatives of the Related Company [sic]. On May 25, Ms. Schreiber tendered her resignation. Resignation indicated that she was going to accept a position in the development industry. The development industry position that she took was with the Related Companies. On or about June 7, 2006, The Related Group submitted its application for a change of zoning from Government/Institutional to R-4. Ms. Schreiber's last day at the City was on or about June 23. Since joining The Related Group, Ms. Cuervo-Schreiber has been elevated to senior project manager of this project at 300 Grove Bay Residences. It was hereafter and some time prior to the first scheduled Zoning Board meeting that the Planning Department issued what it called its analysis of zoning change, and this is the analysis which conflicts with the analysis that was done on the Bobby Maduro Stadium. You can see in this analysis, which is also in your binders, that there is absolutely no reference whatsoever to the adjacency of the low- to medium -density properties located around this property. Why in the world would the Planning Department recommend an up -zoning? For the Planning Department to recommend high -density residential in a low- to medium -density neighborhood without any study and without any written analysis is bad planning. Why should this property be treated any differently than the Bobby Maduro City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Stadium site? Why should neighborhoods adjacent to the Bobby Maduro site receive the benefit of the protections of the Zoning Code, of the development regulations, and of the Comp Plan, and the neighbors adjacent to the Mercy property receive something less? This is a denial of equal protection of the law. From a legal standpoint, it's unconstitutional. From a planning prospective. It's bad planning in the face of your text amendment, your limitations, your protections for these adjacent neighborhoods, and it's bad planning in accordance with the Neighborhood Plan. In terms of additional substantial competent evidence for you to consider, let me briefly address the Comp Plan. At Exhibits -- or Tabs 6 and 7, I've made reference to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as well as to the EAR (Evaluation Appraisal Report). The proposed development has to be consistent with this plan. Objective L U-1.1.3, which is the standard that I had questioned Mr. Luft on, basically provides for the protection of all areas of the City from the encroachment of incompatible land uses. The development is incompatible, it's out of context and it will be addressed by our experts; architect, Thaddeus Cohen, and our land planner, Mr. Iler. There are no land use objectives in the Comp Plan that encourage high -density multifamily residential development in low- to medium -density neighborhoods. The high -density developments that are encouraged in our Comp Plan are limited to the Downtown District, and pursuant to objective L U-1.1.6, high -density residential in proximity to Meforail stations and Metromover stations. L U-1.6.9 provides that the City land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potential adverse impacts offuture development. Commissioners, the mechanism that you adopted through the Grovenor Ordinance was a mechanism designed to protect and mitigate against the potential adverse impacts of these types of developments in adjacent to low- to medium -density properties. If the Comprehensive Plan prohibits Mercy Hospital from developing this property for a nongovernmental, noninstitutional use in excess of the least abutting use, then how can The Related Company's proposed high -density residential use be consistent with this neighborhood plan? It's not, and it can't be. IfMercy Hospital can't develop a non -ancillary use to the heights that The Related Company is proposing, why should The Related Company be entitled to do so? There is no entitlement. In the EAR, which is a self -evaluation by the City ofMiami, at page three the City ofMiami states: "Strategies to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development and negative impacts need to be addressed in the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan." The EAR is a self -evaluation by the City. It's a recognition and an admission of a need to protect. That's what the text amendment does. You should receive credit for adopting an ordinance with limitations that protects your citizens, protects your neighbors against this type of a development. In terms offuture land use elements, the objectives and policies were identified as being impacted by the City, recommended changes to LU-1.1.3, and at the exhibits that I have provided to you, they appear at page 52 and 54 of the EAR. In considering the proposed project and rezoning in terms of bulk, scale, compatibility, character, and the like, I asked Mr. Luft about the definitions. He said, yeah, he considered the definitions, and the definition itself when you talk about compatibility is the harmony between -- harmony in design and appearance between two or more attributes of a neighborhood. Well, I'll tell you what. When you carve out 6.7 acres from the Mercy property, it's going to be a part of the neighborhood immediately adjacent to it. It's not going to be a part of the Mercy complex, if you will, a hospital complex. It's going to be residential, and it's going to be part of the neighborhood next to it, and it's not going to be in harmony in terms of design and appearance, and I would ask all of you to go out and take a look at those adjacent neighborhoods because nowhere in those neighborhoods is there any building of any size, of any magnitude, of any bulk, of any scale, that compares in any way whatsoever to this property. In fact, when Mr. Fort -Brescia talked about the reductions that they were going to achieve, and they're going from 37 stories, less nine, to 27 -- I actually calculate 28. We're going to have three buildings there that are 28 stories each. Those are not in scale. Those are not compatible. Those are not in harmony in design and appearance with the adjacent neighborhoods themselves. When this project was first proposed, there was 1.2 million square feet proposed. As I understand Mr. Fort-Brescia's testimony, they're reducing that by 137,000 square feet. Well, by my calculations, that's about 11 percent, so this isn't a question of "Well, we're knocking down, you know, `X" number of floors, 12 floor plates," as they put it. This is a question about bulk, about magnitude, about size, about height, and the only reason why they're City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 asking for R-4 right now is so they can accomplish that height. Assume for the moment that they were asking for a variance. Would they be able to get a variance? No. You know why? Because they're not entitled to it. They'd never be able to demonstrate a hardship. R-3 is R-3. R-1 is R-1, and they're not entitled to anything more than that. When we talk about substantial competent evidence, I would ask you to consider the testimony that you're going to hear from the public, and I would ask for you also to consider your own community. If you were to go ahead and take a look at the building that start from the Mutiny and end up at the SBS (Spanish Broadcasting System) building on Bayshore Drive, which just so happens to be in the SD-17 District that was eluded to by Mr. Luft, you are going to find buildings that are 12 stories, 17 stories, 19 stories, 8, 9, 14, 15, 7, 16, 21, 21, and 14. The majority of them are well below 20, and there is one that sticks out, and that's at 29, and by golly, guess which one that is. That's the Grovenor property, and the Grovenor is what precipitated this discussion that we're having today. Please consider that on September 11, 2006, as part ofyour substantial competent evidence, your Zoning Board rejected this rezoning request. Please consider that on September 20th, your Planning Advisory Board could not recommend an approval. There was a split vote 3/3. Please also consider when you look at a rezoning of property, consider the absence of changed conditions. Mercy Hospital property has been there for a lot of years. It has always been bounded by South Bayshore Drive, it has always been bounded by Biscayne Bay, and it has always been bounded by the two residential neighborhoods that surround it, and that would be across the street on Bayshore; it would be to the southwest around the Glencoe area as well. What has changed has been those neighborhoods which have grown and which have matured. There have been no other changes. Commissioner Sarnoff eluded to a passage on an overlay disfrict that appears, and there is a copy of the overlay disfrict in your tabs as well, and what Commissioner Sarnoff referred to was the language that identified the concern that the City Commission had at one time about the type of development and redevelopment that can occur on this property. Specifically it said 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 to ensure that future development, or redevelopment of this land, with respect -- will respect and enhance the general character of this area, and to protect against inappropriate height, destruction of natural or man-made features or incongruent designs. Which property were they talking about? Commissioner Sarnoff you thought they were talking about the Vizcaya property. Actually if you take a look at Section 15-101 under intent, it talks about all of these things surrounding a place called the Mercy Hospital complex. This intent by the Commission with this overlay disfrict was a recognition that when you're dealing with a property such as this, and you're experiencing the type of residential growth in proximity to it, you cannot legislate, you cannot approve, you cannot rezone in a vacuum. You must respect what has grown and matured around it. There is a legitimate public purpose, as I mentioned, against projects which are out of scale, projects that are inconsistent with your intent, and this is a project that defies the intent. I submit to you that your G/I zoning ordinance and the text amendment in 2004, Commissioner Sanchez, provides you with a rational basis and perhaps even an overwhelming basis to say that this Commission has expressed its intent; this Commission has established a policy; this Commission will recognize what's in the record as the substantial competent evidence to decide that the R-4 rezoning on this property is really inappropriate. Please also consider that if you give the developer the R-4 zoning, you will be affording him preferential treatment that has not been received by any developer in the City ofMiami to date. There has been no G/I property that has been rezoned to a density, to an intensity for the type of uses contemplated in this project ever. This is a first, and it may very well not be the last. We have objected consistently to this project. We maintain that the rezoning request is not reasonable and more importantly it's not consistent with your Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, nor the policy and the mandate ofyour text amendment. Zoning classifications are intended to benefit the entire public. My clients are entitled to rely upon the protections of the Zoning Ordinance. I ask this question: What entitlement, if any, does The Related Group have to have this property rezoned, above and beyond anything you possibly ever considered or imagined? What entitlement is there? City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: I want to ask you, do you realize that you have gone over your time in an excess of -- I'm sorry, you have exceeded your time for at least ten minutes, right, Madam City Clerk? Ms. Thompson: We have a total of 44 minutes thus far. Mr. Lukacs: OK. Well, I have exceeded my time, and the reason why, Commissioner, is because this is such an important issue, not only -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, I know. Mr. Lukacs: -- to my clients, but to the City as a whole. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Lukacs: We have expert testimony who will speak to the issues of compatibility, lack of context, or incompatibility, and lack of context, and I would ask for your indulgence and ask you to allow us to experience the full due process necessary in order to address these very difficult and complex questions. That being said, and with your permission -- Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Vice Chairman? Mr. Lukacs: -- I would like to introduce briefly my two expert witnesses. May I, Commissioner? Chairman Gonzalez: How much time are your witnesses going to take, more or less? Have an idea? You have no idea? Mr. Lukacs: No more than ten minutes each. Chairman Gonzalez: No more than ten minutes each, and how many are they? Mr. Lukacs: Two. Chairman Gonzalez: Two. All right. Mr. Lukacs: Thank you, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Lukacs: That being said, it's my privilege to introduce Thaddeus Cohen. Mr. Cohen: Good afternoon. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Please state your name and address for the record. Thaddeus Cohen: My name is Thaddeus Cohen, my address is 3436 Gardenview Way, Tallahassee, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Grove Isle, speaking as an expert witness, and we may wind up doing this with my colleague as a colloquy, I'm not sure, depending on the time we have, but what I want to do is take a moment and kind of pull together some of the things that Mr. Luft -- excuse me, we were just talking about him a lot, so -- Mr. Lukacs was talking about in terms of how you ought to think about this process. Mr. Lukacs: Before you do so, would you -- Mr. Cohen: Yes. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Lukacs: -- please, Mr. Cohen, share with the Commission briefly your educational background and your work experience as an expert? Mr. Cohen: Sure enough, let me do that. I'm a registered architect here in the State of Florida. I have an NCRB for national -- being able to work. Graduated from Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. Job -- just recently from April of '04 to January of '06, I'm the secretary of the Department of Community Affairs, so now I'm the former secretary for the Department of Community Affairs. With that, we handled, as you know, land planning for the entire state, as well as being able to handle emergency management issues down here, so with that I think it brings me to the point where one of the things that we did over the last two legislative sessions is to pass Senate Bill 360, which is the most sweeping growth management change in the State of Florida since 1985. Part of what I think we're talking here, and the reason why I'm interested in this process -- and I also want to offer my congratulations to the work that you, as a Commission has done, because ifI had a chance to look through the documents, you have clearly spent a lot of time talking about neighborhoods, and in the planning process, neighborhoods is what's important; it is bringing together the citizenry for them to make a collective judgment on how they should grow and prosper, and in looking at that, when you create your Neighborhood Conservation Districts, you clearly place an importance on the fact that you wanted to preserve the character of Coconut Grove, and interestingly as you went through the process, and you took a look at the various overlays that you were going to do, in each case that I was able to find, you decided that you wanted to limit the height, you wanted to limit the intensity, you wanted to be able to maintain the integrity of this fragile community, and when you went to your EAR process, which is the update ofyour Comprehensive Plan having been in existence for a while, it gives you an opportunity to bring your citizens together around the table and talk about the various ideas, what was their concern? There concern was as you come into Miami and you see those high-rises and you see the cranes everywhere, what's the impact going to be on my neighborhood? And right there on the first page of your EAR it says, "We want to be able to understand how growth and development is going to occur -- I'm paraphrasing now -- and what's the impact going to be on my neighborhood and community? We don't want to have inappropriate designs. We don't want to have more congestion, and so we want to create a framework and a process that creates transparency. You, as policy makers, make a decision in concert with your residents, and you create a compact, and you put that down in your Comprehensive Plan, you review it in your EAR, and then you implement that through your zoning legislation, and you said, these things are going to be important to us, and I found it fascinating that when you had an irregularity, as I understand it a few years ago, in which a concern arised about the fact that you could have a development that would wind up being incompatible, you stopped, you paused, you reflected, and you took action, and for that you should be congratulated. You created a framework that became very clear. What happens to a property if it ceases to be G/I, for governmental and institutional uses? What should we do? And what you said is, from that framework from your policy statement in your Comprehensive Plan, which says we're going to protect our neighborhoods and communities, we're going to limit what those changes can be, and we're going to limit those to being the least intensive abutting zoning district. Didn't say the greatest or the maximum; you said the least. You had a choice of words, and in the Planning Fact Sheet, that I had an opportunity to review, you use other words. You said to prevent incompatible uses in the future, and how would you do that? We're going to go to the least -- and as I look at, for example, the ordinance that you have, which is the legislative intent, I found it fascinating from the other side some of the issues that they raised, and as I read the document, and they talk in terms of the scale in which they have an opportunity to do projects as large as what they have currently, I have a different reading. I look at it and see that when you have intent and scale, you struck the words residential facilities. You added the word intensity. You added the words least intense abutting zoning district, and interestingly, you sfruck R-4. You struck R-4. Furthermore, under office you said once again that we have noninstitutional uses as least intense abutting zoning district and you sfruck office because office has a series of uses that you found incompatible if used in G/I, if G/I no longer City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 exists, so even today if you have G/I and you want to do something that is an ancillary use, not a principal use, you're restricted to the least abutting zoning district. Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Cohen, you've had an opportunity to review the magnitude and the scale of the project that's being proposed by the developer. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this project is compatible with the adjoining neighborhood, and whether or not a rezoning should be granted to the R-4 intensities and densities being requested? Mr. Cohen: I have an opinion, and I believe that it should not be. It should be consistent with the policy that the Commission had established in doing the text change, and we heard a lot about compatibility, but we didn't hear it within the word context, and we didn't hear it within the word neighborhood, and I think what's important is to be able to have that context and neighborhood in which items 3 and 4 in compatibility, which there is a definition. The other side says there was no definition for compatibility when, in fact, you have it listed under definition and in part what it says is design and appearance. Design and appearance, two or more attributes of a neighborhood, and we don't find -- I don't find that with the design as it's being proposed currently. Use and function between two or more attributes of a neighborhood, and the atfributes of your neighborhood is that it is low-rise, medium -rise and single-family home, so those atfributes you don't find in the presentation that has been prepared and provided to you today. Mr. Lukacs: In arriving at your opinion -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, excuse me a moment, point of order, if you will. I don't believe that when applicant was making its presentation and tendered their experts to testify, that there was any kind of direct examination by applicant's attorney of applicant's expert. I'm sure counsel is very fair minded and very open-minded, and he would like to see a process that is mirror image, you know, allowing everyone an equal playing field. In fact, I don't know if Commissioner Sarnoff remembers admonishing Lucia with regard to contacting or communicating with the expert. I think that what's fair game -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander, something like that -- is that you tender your expert and let your expert testify, as I'm sure you have rehearsed before his arriving here, and then allow, you know, the witnesses or the other experts to go through and then have cross-examination by the applicant. Again, this is not a court proceeding. You, as Commissioners, act in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Rules of Evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, all of those rules are not being followed here. However, decent protocol and fairness should be followed, and I submit to you that what this gentleman is doing with his expert is something for you to consider. Mr. Cohen: I will then, on behalf of the team, apologize for that, but what I will say for the record is, for folks who know me, I don't rehearse, so just for the record. I do have a reputation to maintain. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Well, let's go ahead and continue -- Mr. Cohen: And I want to apologize -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and fry to maintain some decorum and some order. Mr. Cohen: -- but I will close to cover the points, because as we indicated, we know time is short. Let's talk about context, and I think that's important, again, from a community standpoint. One of the things that your documents repeat most often, for example, when you are in Section 603 of your Zoning Code for SD-3, major streets overlays, and you -- here's where you would think the most intense development would occur. Under 603.1 intent, in part, and I'm going to paraphrase here, it says along major streets are special and substantial public interest, future private development shall respect, enhance this character, this being the community. It goes on City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 to say that apply high visible areas strategically located along major streets. Now, again, this project is not along a major street, and to protect -- here is that word again -- protect against inappropriate height, discordinate [sic] or incongruent design, encourage development in such portions -- proportions, I'm sorry, in such proportions of the community, and then you go and limit what you can do in those areas, so in the areas in which you have identified as being special, being high traffic, being most visible, you have indicated that there is to be proportion to the community; you have indicated that it's to be congruent with the design of the community, and you've identified that it ought not to be inappropriate on your most highly visible artery, so here tucked back in a residential neighborhood, what we're being asked to accept is something that's R-4; unlimited height because of how this project has been designed; massing, which is 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 times larger than anything in the preceding area, and to say unfortunately from the other side that it's compatible with the neighborhood. Clearly we disagree, so, in closing, I hope that what you'll be able to take a look at is, what is the pattern of development that has occurred in this community over the last few years? How hard you have worked with your citizens to create a framework that says you want to protect your community? You created height limitations in all of the major significant areas of your community to say that this is the style that we want to have. You have limited G/I now so that if you want to be able to develop it, it still has to maintain a level of consistency. There is nothing that I see in the policies that you've established, the framework that you and your citizens have put together that would warrant a change from G/I to R-4. It should be R-3 so that it maintains the integrity and compatibility with the community. That is the reason why you have a Comprehensive Plan. That's the reason why you go through a visioning process with your citizens, and that is the reason why I think you, rightly so, created a text amendment in order to carry through your intent not to have these anomalies. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, counsel? Ms. Thompson: Mr. Chair -- I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before -- ma'am? Mr. Lukacs: I'm not sure that I can say anything, Commissioner. Mr. Fernandez doesn't want me asking any more questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, counsel. Madam Clerk? Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I just would like to know if the Chair would make -- find out from the audience, do we have anyone that needs a Spanish or Creole interpreter? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are we going to need a Spanish or Creole interpreter for anyone here? Anyone? You never know. OK, Madam Clerk. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. All right. Commissioner Sarnoff Before he sits down -- I didn't get -- I didn't -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Are there any questions from the Commission? If not, what we'll do, counsel, to maintain the order, we'll go with your other expert witness, and then we'll allow cross-examination. Mr. Lukacs: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Counsel? City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff I didn't get your full name. Mr. Cohen: Full name is Thaddeus -- Commissioner Sarnoff Thaddeus. Mr. Cohen: -- Cohen. Commissioner Sarnoff What's the last name? Mr. Cohen: Cohen, C-O-H-E-N. Commissioner Sarnoff Cohen. OK, and I didn't get your full credentials. Can I just hear them one more time? Mr. Cohen: OK. I have a Bachelor's ofArchitecture -- BA ofArchitecture from Kent State University in Ohio. I'm a registered architect, and I'm the former secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Commissioner Sarnoff When did you last do that? Mr. Cohen: January 2, '07. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Mr. Cohen: I left office with the new administration. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff What do you do now? Mr. Cohen: I consult. Commissioner Sarnoff The question I usually ask people is, ifI met you in an elevator, would you be carrying a briefcase as well as having a card? And they would say yes and I say then you must be an expert. Mr. Cohen: Well, I'll tell you, it's so new I don't even have a card, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff Then you wouldn't qualify. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, thank you. Counsel, you may call your next witness -- expert witness. Mr. Lukacs: Thank you. Mr. Iler. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Sir, state your name, address for the record, and while you are at it, your credentials. Mr. Iler: OK My name is Henry Iler, I'm president and principal of Iler Planning Group. Our offices are in Palm Beach Gardens at 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 206. I am a land planner. I've also brought with me, which we can submit to the Clerk, my resume and qualifications, but I'll go through that just briefly. City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Please do, and then go ahead and we'll present it to the City Clerk -- Hr. Iler: Sure. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and also could you talk into the mike? Talk into the mike. Mr. Iler: Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Iler: I will certainly do that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Iler: Basically, I've been in urban planning -- first of all, I have an undergraduate from the University of Florida in BusinessAdministration, and a graduate degree from Florida State in Urban Planning. I'm a Certified Urban Planning [sic] through the American Institute of Certified Planners for -- since 1979. I also have worked for government. I was a regional planning for the -- planner for the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, a principal planner, and Development Impact Committee Coordinator for Miami -Dade County for 10 years. Also I was growth management director ofMartin County for four years, and after that, in the early 90's, I started my own planning firm. Since that time our planning firm has done a number of projects. We focus pretty much on public sector planning. We've done Comprehensive Plans -- numerous Comprehensive Plans for local governments in this area. We also do land development code work, writing new codes. We just recently finished the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Doral out west. That's recently been given the approval by the State, and we also are writing their new land development code, so that's just one of our projects. We've done redevelopment planning for Deerfield Beach. I'll go through just some of the other projects, many projects. We're the planners for Florida City and Homestead. We did the first Comprehensive Plan for Miami Lakes about four years ago; also, their land development code. We did a master planning design charette for North Bay Village just last year, which we're now implementing. I've also done community visioning for Dania Beach and their Downtown Redevelopment Plan; corridor studies for Tamarac; Evaluation and Appraisal Reports for Deerfield Beach and a number of other communities; Urban Design Plan for Fort Lauderdale. I mentioned Florida City as an ongoing client. Comprehensive Plan for Marco Island. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, for the sake of time, I think you're overly qualified as an expert. Go ahead. Mr. Iler: OK I didn't know we put so much in the book, I'm sorry. I was just reading along. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, questions not leading. Mr. Lukacs: Not leading. Do you have an opinion as to the compatibility and the scale of this project, and an opinion as to whether or not the subject property should be rezoned? Mr. Iler: Yes, I do. Mr. Lukacs: Please express the opinion and the basis for your opinion. Mr. Iler: OK I also have some text remarks that I prepared in writing that will be submitted as part of the record, I believe. It's very important to submit to really -- as was done early on in this presentation back around 2:30, to remember we're just not here for a MUSP, we are here for a land use amendment and a rezoning, and only after those two you find in some way that those two are justified, will you be able to approve or consider the MUSP, so first of all, in the land use amendment, which we talk about compatibility in the Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning and City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 redevelopment require a land use amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan from the site's current designation of major institutional, public facilities, transportation and utilities to high -density multifamily residential. The City is attempting to process this request as a small scale amendment, under the state statute, which obviates the need for state review and considerably shortens the time of processing. These are normally for parcels that are less than ten acres in size and less than ten units per acre. Density standards can be altered in some cases. In order to proceed with processing this amendment as a small scale, the City claims that it is consistent with Chapter 163, Florida State Statutes, based on the idea that it allows a maximum residential density, the same or less than the maximum residential density that is allowed under the existing land use category. However, residential uses in this major institutional public facilities, transportation and utilities land use designation only are allowed to the extent they are ancillary to the primary, governmental or institutional use, so, yes, you can have 150 units on this site under G/I, but they've got to be a group home; they have to be related; they have to be developed by the hospital, the institutional use, for the benefit of the hospital or the medical use. Other than that, what's being asked this evening of the 300 units of solely private housing is not something that you can do under the current land use category, so to fry to compare the 150 units currently that you can do with what they're doing now really is like apples and oranges, and in claiming that there will be no additional impacts from this proposed land use change really thwarts the intent of Chapter 163 for the small scale amendments. It is intended for projects that are going to be low impact, and I don't think anybody can really argue the impact of this project is not going to be considerable, both in compatibility, community design, and impact on public services such as transportation and drainage, and water and sewer. This analysis underlining the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan does assume that the land within the major institutional land use category will be for public and ancillary uses, not private housing developments. The amendment, thus represents a major change to the plan that should be submitted to the state DCA (Department of Community Affairs) as a large-scale plan amendment with a full review process prior to moving ahead with rezoning or the MUSP. Furthermore, the Special Use Permit application utilizes a gross lot area of over 11 acres. You'll remember the site is actually land area of 6.7. In order to calculate the FAR for the project, but only 6.72 acres are included in the land use amendment, so they're using 11 acres to calculate the building intensity on the site, and then only 6.7 acres to put in the small-scale land use amendment. In order to derive the intensity from land, it should have the appropriate future land use designation. The way they're able to do that is, they're able, under the Code, to include, I think, up to 70 feet or more offshore in submerged land as part of their land area. It would appear that only 6.72 acres is included in order to avoid the certain requirements of the small scale, which is to be less than 10 acres. This too is an inappropriate method to avoid the requirements of a large-scale amendment. They're really using the intensity from a plus 10-acre site to put on a site of less than 7 acres. Additionally, the capital improvements policy in the Comprehensive Plan, this is CI-1.2.1, requires that the impact of proposed land use map changes on the level of service, public capital facilities needs, and the City's financial ability to provide required facilities, will be assessed before such proposals are adopted. The City attempts to meet this requirement through the concurrency management analysis. However, this analysis treats the land use amendment as if the same density and intensity were allowed under the both existing and future land use categories, both under the major facilities, as well as the one they're asking for, the high -density. Thus, for traffic, recreation and open space, portable water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste, staff projects no change in level of service impacts. However, when preparing the analysis for the Comprehensive Plan, projecting future traffic and the other levels of service, the plan didn't assume that this 6.7 acres would be developed for residential use. Obviously, it assumed it was already used as a parking lot ancillary to a hospital, so this parcel was not assessed in your EAR or any previous Comprehensive Plan analysis for 300 private residential units. It certainly does not assume that the subject parcel, or the entire Mercy parcel, much less all land in the entire City under major institutional land use, would be developed at 150 dwelling units per acre. We all know that that was not the assumption made in previous planning of the City for G/I property, so it is really -- you really need to assess the level of service impact on traffic and other items City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 from really ground zero. You really can't use the 150 of ancillary dwelling units to the 300 units that they're proposing, because those units have never been assessed, those 150 units that can be put in G/I as ancillary units. Therefore, the data and analysis in support of this amendment, this land use amendment, is inadequate in terms of evaluating the impacts on public facility level of service. There are other policies, and Mr. Luft submitted a number of policies he felt that the project was consistent with in the Comprehensive Plan, but there are a number that it is, in fact, not consistent with, and when I talk about comprehensive plans and their policies, it's not good enough that you just be consistent with a policy. State law requires that you not only be consistent, but that you facilitate that policy; that you're doing proactive things to make that policy happen. That's why every five or seven years, you're required to do an Evaluation and Appraisal Report, kind of a report card, on your comprehensive plan to see how you did in accomplishing those objectives and policies. Well, if you're just consistent with everything, you probably don't accomplish very much. You're trying to be proactive, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff Can I ask a question? Mr. Iler: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff You said that the EAR didn't assess the 150 units. Can you specifically expand upon that? Mr. Iler: Well, when they were -- when you were doing your EAR, you are required to do revised population projections. You are required to make any land use changes you need to accommodate that future growth, and it's not just private developers making requests, it's the City saying, "Well, if we need more R-4, let's go ahead and put it and say in our EAR let's put some more R-4 in Coconut Grove, " for instance, which you didn't say, but that might have been one thing since we have now a private developer that wants to do that, and so you do it in a comprehensive fashion, and you assess the traffic not just for one parcel, but for all the parcels around it and throughout the City in one type of modeling effort; the same for water, the same for sewer, and obviously, on government and institutional properties, the normal assumption is they're going to be used for government and institutional uses; churches, schools, possibly hospitals, obviously, but it is not assumed that any of the ancillary uses are going to be on the parcel. Traffic planning and those kind of things are just not that sensitive on a citywide basis. Commissioner Sarnoff So by what you're saying is that when the City did its EAR for this site, it was not addressed that there will be any R-4 as any use whatsoever? Mr. Iler: Not on this site, certainly. Not on this site, and they did not -- Commissioner Sarnoff So any analysis of parking -- I'm sorry, any analysis of traffic, water usage, has not occurred on this site based on our EAR analysis? Mr. Iler: No, no. Commissioner Sarnoff That is correct; right? Mr. Iler: Well, not that I'm aware of. We'd have to verify that with the City Planning staff but having done a lot of them, when I have a developed parcel -- and this is actually developed because it does have a parking lot on it, surface lot, so you would assume that that's part of the Mercy development, so a planner, several years ago, doing the EAR, would not have made any kind of assumption like that, unless they were somehow requested to by a private developer, so that is an assumption on my part, but having done this for many years, I would have not done that because there is too many other parcels that are changing you have to deal with, so you have your institutional parcels, and unless you know of a new development going in there, you normally let them be the way they are. There are a number of amendments in the future land use City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 element that are -- that this project is inconsistent with. This is a policy L U-113 which basically says the City's Zoning Ordinance provides for protection of all areas of the City from, number one, encroachment of incompatible land uses; number two, the adverse impacts offuture land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public health and safety or natural or man-made amenities, and number three, transportation policies that divide or fragment established neighborhoods. That's the policy that you need to judge land use amendments on, one of many in your Comprehensive Plan. Our finding was that the proposed high -density multifamily residential, as well as the proposed R-4 zoning, is incompatible with the surrounding area, as it would be the only such designated property in all of Coconut Grove, and would be located on the Mercy Hospital property that currently abuts R-1 zoning almost entirely, in addition to G/I and some area ofR-3. The nearest area designated for high -density multifamily residential in the future land use map is approximately one mile from the site. In addition, the height is 37 stories, 411 feet, which is out of context with the established neighborhood height pattern of 30 feet in R-1, and approximately 8 to 15 stories in R-3, although there is only one 15-story building, but there is one, but generally those heights are down near the 8 and the 5 category for R-3. Also, in addition, policy L U-110 states that the City's land development regs (regulations) will encourage high -density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations, consistent with the stationary design and development plan for each station. Our findings on this policy were that this policy specifically targets areas of the City that are in close proximity to Meforail and Mefomover stations, to receive high -density residential development. The subject site is not appropriate for such development as there are no high -density multifamily residential areas nearby or in all of Coconut Grove, and the site is approximately three quarters of a mile from the nearestMetrorail station. This project does not facilitate this policy as required by state law, and it's not consistent with it. The normal distance that you see in mass transit and almost every mass transit text for the maximum walking distance that people will walk in Florida to a transit station is a quarter mile, and they typically draw that quarter mile circle around the station sites, and that's where they will put it. In fact, Miami -Dade County uses that standard for their planning along Metrorail, and they'll -- and that's normally it, so three quarters of a mile doesn't qualify. Nobody is going to walk that except for a couple of people that are in pretty good shape, but mostly, you're going to jump in your car and, you know, drive to the station. Land Use Policy 169 states that the City's land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of future development. Our finding on this policy was that it is intended to ensure that adverse impacts offuture development are mitigated. However, there is no potential for mitigation of the adverse impacts of development under the high -density multifamily residential designation in the requested location because it is inconsistent, incompatible, and out of scale with the established land use pattern and character of Coconut Grove, and more specifically, the area immediately surrounding the subject site. Distance does not establish compatibility. There was talk about the setback and the building setbacks and the Code, and that you get that for every two feet in height you have to setback one more foot, but that does not constitute compatibility. Finally, housing has a very interesting policy, very similar to the policy in the land use element requiring close proximity to the Metromover and the Meforail stations. I'd like to move now to the rezoning requirement, and your Code requires that you make -- that you identify certain findings in order to have a rezoning. As I mentioned, you have to grant the land use first. Once you've found that the land use is OK, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if you do, then you move to the zoning. You can't go to the zoning until you've dealt with the land use on that macroscale of the whole city and the surrounding neighborhoods. The Zoning Code 2210 stipulates that the Zoning Board report and recommend on a rezoning, should show that the -- this is a quote -- show that the Zoning Board has studied and considered, where applicable, whether or not the statements below are true. At least 7 of the 16 factors are not met by this application, some of the factors just don't even apply, so it's not that they actually address nine of them. A lot of them just don't apply, but 7 specifically apply to this case and they are incongruent with this land use and zoning request. Item B, under this Code 2210 states that the proposed change -- and you've heard this several times this evening -- is in harmony with the established land use pattern. That's a finding that the Board needs to consider. We find that the rezoning is clearly not in City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 harmony with the current land use pattern. The proposed R-4 zoning district would be the only such zoning within Coconut Grove neighborhood, the only residential district which may include structures of unlimited height, as was mentioned by Mr. Cohen, the neighborhood plan for Coconut Grove, all the special areas you've done so far, they all have height limits, and they respect the neighborhood. This would be putting an unlimited zoning category in the middle of Coconut Grove. The rezoning is incompatible with the nearby single family and height limited multifamily structures in the immediate area. It would create a precedent -inducing encroachment of a high -density residential zoning district into a government G/I zoned area that currently has clear and consistent boundaries over many years with this neighboring residential zoning districts. These boundaries have been established for years and years, and so here we have an item that comes in and kind of carves out a little out parcel and wants to be compatible. Item C under your zoning criteria. The proposed changes related to adjacent and nearby disfricts. This proposed rezoning would have no relationship with neighboring and nearby disfricts, while the R-1 and R-3 residential areas nearby are part of a consistent neighborhood fabric that includes streets and public spaces integrated with major institutional uses. The proposed development would be authorized by this rezoning, would not be a part of the street grid and would be out of scale and character with the historic and unique Coconut Grove neighborhoods. Similarly, the development would be placed on an irregularly -shaped parcel carved from a previously -- from a larger G/I zoned parcel, and would have no relationship in form, function, or design with the existing community -serving medical uses. The proposed Item E under your criteria -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: In conclusion -- Mr. Iler: In conclusion? OK I'll kind of skip over just some of these. Once again, we found that you do not meet Item E, which is the proposed change, or the applicant doesn't, maintains a similar population density, as I mentioned. They really can't develop this project under their current land use or zoning. They cannot develop office uses under the current zoning, so there really is no similar population density, and Item E has not been met. Item F under the criteria that they have been logic -- that the boundaries have been logically drawn, we found that those are not the case, as I mentioned previously. Item H, the proposed change positively influences living conditions in the neighborhood. Our finding is that it distinctly does not. It adversely affects and has a great potential to adversely affect the neighborhood, and it's out of scale. The proposed change will contribute to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. We found that that has not been met. It would not improve the area in any of our findings, and there are no substantial reasons why the use of the property is unfairly limited under the current zoning. The applicant has already listed a number of uses that could be put to this property that could be large buildings, so we don't find that, under Item 0, that they have -- they're being unfairly limited. The Special Use Permit, there were some problems there, as far as the housing type of analysis. You're supposed to do a housing market analysis. There is two or three sentences that talk about the South Florida housing market. No real data about Miami or Coconut Grove or anything on the housing, so under the MUSP application, the data submitted just does not complete in that area. They also did not submit any documentation to show whether this development will have a favorable impact on the environment or natural resources. Nothing in the record on that, that we could find. The Grovenor Ordinance, we do share the same feeling as Mr. Cohen that really that ordinance, as it's applied, is really -- the intent of that ordinance is that the G/I property should be least abutting. At a minimum, it should be R-3, if not R-1. It should be sought here that the rezoning is prohibited by this ordinance, in our view. The Neighborhood Conservation Districts are very important. We also find that this is really a form of spot -zoning, and you'll find that in our -- and in conclusion, it is determined that this is -- that this project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, inconsistent with the Zoning Code, and the Grovenor Ordinance, and we'd be glad to answer any questions, or I would be. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, have you built your record on this? City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Lukacs: Thus far we have. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You should have turned that -- you should have turned all that to the City Clerk's Office as an exhibit. Commissioner Sarnoff Will you state your name for the record again? I'm sorry. Mr. Iler: Yes. Henry Iler, I-L-E-R is the last name. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's -- Counsel, are you done? Is he done? All right. Do you have any more expert witnesses? Mr. Lukacs: That would conclude our presentation. However, is Mr. Fort -Brescia and the Vizcaya expert witness called by the developer still available? Will they be available later? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wait, wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute, counsel. Mr. Lukacs: Cross-examination. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let's -- Are you done with your expert witnesses? Mr. Lukacs: I am. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go ahead and have -- now cross-examination on both of your -- and then we'll proceed back to you. Are you ready with the cross-examination? Ms. Dougherty: Before I go, our architectural historian has to take a flight. She's going to be leaving at 7:00, so if they want to cross-examine her now, she -- they need to be doing that now. Mr. Lukacs: I just have two questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, we're going to fry to please everybody. Come on up, we'll get you on a plane. All right. Let's go. Mr. Lukacs: Hi. My name is John Lukacs. You spoke to the issues of visibility and lack of visibility. In terms of Vizcaya's relationship to the proposed development, what exactly exists between Vizcaya proper and the improvements there, and the proposed development? Is there trees? Is it foliage? What separates that? Ms. Adams: There is an incomplete boundary of trees along the south edge of the property. The La Salle School is on the next property, and then the hospital. Mr. Lukacs: And it's your opinion that that separation will obscure the view of this project, in large part, from Vizcaya? Ms. Adams: I didn't say that. Mr. Lukacs: OK. What exists between the subject property and Grove Isle? Do you know where Grove Isle is? No? Commissioner Regalado: Can I ask a question? Can I ask you a question? Ma'am, you don't live in South Florida; do you? Ms. Adams: I do not. City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: So is it out of state or out of the country? Ms. Adams: I live in Bethesda, Maryland actually. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, in Bethesda, Maryland, so you visit South Florida frequently or - _? Ms. Adams: Yes, actually. Lately, yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. That's all I wanted to know. Mr. Lukacs: That's OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Lukacs: The witness -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Any more questions? All right. Sir, are you done? Mr. Lukacs: I am. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Thank you. Ma'am, no more questions. Thank you so much. Ms. Adams: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Applicant, cross-examine only on testimony that has been put on the record, please. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, I'd like to question Mr. Iler. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Iler, step up, name and address for the record. Mr. Iler: My name is Henry Iler. My address is 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 206, in Palm Beach Gardens. Ms. Dougherty: You testified as to what can currently be built on the G/I properties, and could you tell us about that? Mr. Iler: Currently, you can build governmental and institutional uses. There was a change made a few years ago so that office uses are not able to be built, except as ancillary, and also that there are group homes available as well as -- they also has to be ancillary to the government and institutional use. Ms. Dougherty: So, in fact, you could have a medical office building there? Mr. Iler: It would be a tough call because offices are not allowed. If the medical office building was a clinic connected to the hospital, it would be a call, but it clearly says that offices are not allowed, so it would be a call whether those could be allowed or not. I don't know the -- Ms. Dougherty: Well, you're familiar with Jackson Memorial Hospital? Mr. Iler: Yes, I am. Ms. Dougherty: Are you familiar with the new office building that just went up? City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Iler: No, I'm not. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Then let me ask you something. A nursing home, would that be permitted? Mr. Iler: I believe so. Ms. Dougherty: To 150 units per acre? Hr.Iler: Possibly. Ms. Dougherty: Are you familiar with the major institutional, public facilities, transportation and utilities portion of the Comprehensive Plan? Hr.Iler: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: And does it permit recreational -- residential facilities ancillary to those uses allowed to a maximum density, equivalent to high -density multifamily residential? Hr.Iler: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: So, in fact, you could have a nursing home or other kind of facility that's ancillary to 150 units per acre? Mr. Iler: Ancillary to the government and institutional use, yes, you could. Ms. Dougherty: OK, and so, in fact, wouldn't that necessarily mean that your Comprehensive Plan anticipates the infrastructure for 150 units per acre? Mr. Iler: No, it does not. It just depends on what kind of analysis was made when the level of service analysis was done in the EAR for this parcel and all the other parcels in the City, and unless there were some land use amendment or some feeling on the part of the City at that time that they wanted to see R-4 here, typically that kind of assessment would not be done. Now, if there was an amendment, back in the time that the EAR was done, on this parcel or something that the City wanted to see as R-4, that would have been the time to propose it, and they could have done the analysis, but normally -- Ms. Dougherty: But uou don't know if it was done or not, do you? Mr. Iler: I don't know for sure. Like I said, I was assuming. Ms. Dougherty: Then you've also said that this would -- should be a large-scale amendment because of the 10-acre rule as well as the 10-unit rule? Mr. Iler: We don't -- there is wording in the statute that allows, if you have the same density on a parcel currently that you are going to, same or less, that you don't have to meet the 10-unit per acre rule, but given the severe limitations on 150 units, there could only be a nursing home or group home ancillary to the medical use versus a private facility of 300 units. It's really a totally different development, and the impacts on the neighborhood are much different from the point of view of trip generation and those kind of things, so our feeling on that particular case was that the City should err on the side of doing a full type analysis and send it based on the fact that they are having that kind of density, and then the other point was -- Ms. Dougherty: Can I just ask another question? City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Iler: -- if they are using 11 -- Ms. Dougherty: Just let me ask you a question. Mr. Iler: Well, no. You asked about the -- Ms. Dougherty: Is the 10-acre a --? Mr. Iler: No. You asked about the FAR. Ms. Dougherty: I'm asking you about the 10-acre rule again. Are there any other exceptions to the 10-acre rule? Mr. Iler: I didn't find -- I didn't answer the 10-acre question fully. Can I do that? Ms. Dougherty: I'm only asking about the 10-unit rule, excuse me. Ten -unit rule, is what we're talking about. Are there any other exceptions to that? Mr. Iler: Not that I'm aware of at this point. Ms. Dougherty: Are you aware of the exception for an urban infill area? Mr. Iler: I am aware of those. Ms. Dougherty: OK. Are you aware that this is in the urban infill area? Mr. Iler: I was not aware. Ms. Dougherty: OK. I don't have any further questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Sir, are you driving back to West Palm Beach? Mr. Iler: Am I what? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you driving back home, West Palm Beach? Mr. Iler: Hopefully. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Be careful driving back home, sir. Mr. Iler: Well, thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Next -- do you have any questions for the other -- Mr. Shubin: Two questions for Mr. Cohen. Vice Chairman Sanchez: --expert witness? Mr. Shubin: For Mr. Cohen. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Sir, please state your name and address for the record. Mr. Cohen: Thaddeus Cohen, 3436 Gardenview Way, Tallahassee. Mr. Shubin: Let me ask you a similar question that Ms. Dougherty asked Mr. Iler. Do you have City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 an opinion as to whether or not a medical office building in the same dimensions as that which is proposed here today could be built on the subject site? Mr. Cohen: As I read the text amendment, it would not be permissible. Mr. Shubin: Under the existing zoning and existing text, do you have an opinion? Mr. Cohen: Under the existing zoning now? I'm looking at a document that I have which is called City ofMiami, Legislation Ordinance. If you go to what I have when I printed it out, which is Page 2. Mr. Shubin: What are you reading from, sir, the Grovenor Ordinance? Mr. Cohen: Yes. Mr. Shubin: I'm not asking you about the Grovenor Ordinance, I'll ask you about that a little later? Mr. Cohen: Well, is not the Grovenor Ordinance what's G/I? Mr. Shubin: I'll leave that -- Mr. Cohen: Well then, my presumption is that the Grovenor Ordinance covers G/I -- Mr. Shubin: What is the --? Mr. Cohen: -- and ifI look at the text amendment, so I can answer your question, is that under intensity it says government and institutional uses, as for office. For all other noninstitutional uses, as for the least intense abutting zoning district, and office was stricken. Prior to that, under what is called permitted principal uses, offices, which is number five, offices, business and professional, which would be medical office buildings, are also deleted. Mr. Shubin: Let's start with the basics. Mr. Cohen: OK. Mr. Shubin: You understand you're here on a rezoning application; correct? Mr. Cohen: I was here to speak to an issue about comprehensive plans, as well. Mr. Shubin: OK, in the context of a rezoning application -- Mr. Cohen: OK. Mr. Shubin: -- what is the current zoning on the property today, as we speak? Mr. Cohen: As far as I know, it's G/I. Mr. Shubin: OK, so my question is, as we sit here today, do you have an opinion as to whether or not a medical office building, in the same dimensions as that which is being proposed today could be built on the site in the G/I zoning district? Mr. Cohen: And as I understand this legislative ordinance, no, you could not. Mr. Shubin: What is your understanding as to the intent of that ordinance that you're referring City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 to? Let's just refer to it as the Grovenor Ordinance? Mr. Cohen: OK. Well, where I get the intent is, again, from a document that I obtained, which is called a Planning Fact Sheet, which talks in terms of the previous -- hold on, excuse me one moment. Mr. Shubin: Let me ask you a question. Do you know if it was the intent of that ordinance to roll back, or somehow diminish the existing and permitted uses or the dimensions, the intensities and densities in the G/I District? Mr. Cohen: IfI can find that document, I will quote it for you directly, but what it says is that there is a concern of about inappropriate uses occurring in G/I as the backdrop for that conversation. It says that they want to be able to protect those neighborhoods, and then it specifically says what it is that they would do in order to do that protection, so that is the backdrop for which that legislation was projected. Then it goes further in the actual legislation itself and I can't find that document, so -- then it goes further in that document itself and it says, "Whereas" -- in this thing where it has a bunch ofwhereases -- "Whereas, Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its June 2, '04 meeting, item number 7, followed an advertised hearing adopted resolution, and it gives the number, and a vote of 8/0 recommending approval of that zoning ordinance, so as I read it, it gives a predicate for here's the issue that we think we need to address. It outlines in the second part of the body of that paragraph, under the recommendations, here's how they're to do it, and then this legislative body passed an ordinance that implements that. Mr. Shubin: And in fact, wasn't it the intent of that ordinance to regulate the procedures by which abandoned G/I property could be converted for other uses? Mr. Cohen: I would suggest what it did was it created a framework in which it said, if you are no longer going to use a subject property as G/I, it gave a prescription as to how it is to be used. Mr. Shubin: Perfect. Now I think we're getting to where -- Suppose you never wanted to abandon the use; you're sitting here today with G/I property. Could you, or could you not, build a medical office building in the same dimensions as that which is being proposed here today? Mr. Cohen: Under this legislation, again, just reading from the document, that's not -- doesn't appear to me to be the case. It appears to me what it says is it outlines what is a permitted use; it outlines what are conditional uses; it outlines what are ancillary uses, and I think it -- to me, it seems fairly clear that even under today they wanted to be able to ensure that it met what was the least intrusive. Mr. Shubin: Is there anything in that ordinance that you're referring to that prohibits a landowner from seeking to rezone their property from one residential use to another, or from a G/I use to a residential use? Mr. Cohen: I'm sorry? Say it again. Mr. Shubin: Is there anything that prohibits a landowner from seeking to rezone their property, either from a G/I use to a residential use, or from any other use that they would like to seek? Mr. Cohen: It is prescriptive to the extent that it says, by referring back to that planning document, that if you cease to be a G/I, then it says you are to be the least abutting -- Mr. Shubin: But it doesn't -- Mr. Cohen: -- so it provides a framework for how it is that you're to look at a property when City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 that use ceases to exist. Mr. Shubin: I'll let you stand on your opinion. I'll move on to another question. Mr. Cohen: Thank you. Mr. Shubin: Did you or did you not state, maybe I misheard you, that the R-4 district was the most intense zoning district in the City ofMiami? Mr. Cohen: No, I did not say that. Mr. Shubin: OK. That was not your testimony? Mr. Cohen: No, sir. Mr. Shubin: Do you, in fact, have an opinion as to whether or not there are other zoning disfricts in the City ofMiami that have a greater degree of intensity than that which is permitted in the R-4 district? Mr. Cohen: Well, I think I would like to limit myself to the documents that I've read in association with this particular parcel. Mr. Shubin: Do you understand the difference between density and intensity? Mr. Cohen: Yes, I do. Mr. Shubin: And density is units per acre, intensity is FAR? Mr. Cohen: Intensity is also the types of uses that can be placed on that particular parcel. Mr. Shubin: What's the permitted FAR in the R-4 disfrict? Mr. Cohen: IfI remember from the documentation correctly, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.72. Mr. Shubin: OK. Do you believe that's a high FAR or an intense FAR for an urban infill district? Mr. Cohen: That's not what's before us. What's before us is whether or not you can even make that change. Mr. Shubin: Do you know if there are other zoning disfricts in the City ofMiami that have FARs in the 5, 6, 8 category in the central business district? Mr. Cohen: I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Shubin: OK. You made reference to an overlay district. Do you recall your testimony to that effect? An overlay disfrict that I believe that you testified affected the Mercy Hospital property? Mr. Cohen: No. I don't believe I made that statement. Mr. Shubin: You don't have any recollection as to making reference to an overlay disfrict that had been repealed? City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Cohen: Not that I can recall. Mr. Shubin: OK. I have no further questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Sir, you're excused. All right, no further questions? All right. Let's go ahead and -- now I believe we go to the public. Mr. Fernandez: No. You -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, two more attorneys. Oh, my goodness. Mr. Fernandez: But this one promises to be fifteen minutes with no experts. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, my goodness, and I thought we were through with attorneys. All right, and then we have the Vizcaya attorney. OK, and then what we do for the public is that we'll just take both; just we'll line up, two lines, whether for or against, two minutes each so we could go through it. All right, sir, you're recognized for the record. Mr. Goggins: Yes, my name is Patrick Goggins, offices at 777 Brickell Avenue. I'm here on behalf of Constance Steen, Glencoe Homeowners Association, and Mr. Jason Bloch. I will be brief. I have one expert that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You promise? Mr. Goggins: Scout's honor. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Scout honor. Go ahead. Mr. Goggins: Boiling down the expert testimony that's been heard today, you hear notions of scale and compatibility and context, and you hear explanations from the developer side about how somehow you twist these rules and this project that's 410 feet high is compatible with the neighborhood. The simple fact is that this project is the wrong project for Coconut Grove. The buildings are too tall. It is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan calls for R-1 and R-3. The Comprehensive Plan calls for high-rises in three areas downtown, and this isn't it. The question that I would like the Commission to consider this evening is not the technical parts of the testimony that's brought out -- been brought out so far by many learned people, more learned than I am. What I would like the Commission to consider is not just this project, but the effect that this project will have on the City ofMiami long term. This project will be the tallest -- would allow the tallest building in Coconut Grove. It'll be twice as tall as any building within a mile of it. That is important for this Commission to consider, because it is a precedent. When Mercy Hospital -- they have a -- they proffered a covenant that they won't do this to us again for ten more years, take them at their word. They will, in ten more years, do this to us again, and again, and again, and if this slice of pizza has three pieces of pepperoni on it, the next slice is going to have the works, and we're going to be to a point where we don't know what Mercy Hospital's business plans are, what their future is in this area, but what we do know is that they sit on the most valuable real estate in Coconut Grove today, and they want to sell off this piece, the next bite gets a little tastier, and after that, and after that, before you know it, this sixty whatever acre parcel of land has become another Brickell Key; high-rises -- and they talk about fraffic with this project, and maybe it is less than a medical office building would have been, but think about ten of these projects. The fraffic will be horrendous. The infrastructure will be overwhelmed, and the property owner would be enriched, but the citizens of the neighborhood would be much worse for it. I would simply ask for the Commission to step back and look big picture for a moment at the effect that this project would have on the neighborhood long term. My memo sets forth the reasons I believe that this isn't compatible with the Comprehensive Use [sic] Plan and 1305, but it's getting to be a long night, City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 and I'll just let you read that some other time. I'd like, though, to call, as my only witness, Judy Sandoval. She's an architectural historian, and would like to speak to the issues that were addressed by Ms. Adams. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Judy, I didn't know you were an expert witness. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes, Judy. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're a little box of surprises. Judith Sandoval: Judy Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace, and I just made the remark that it's my birthday. Well, Ms. Adams, first of all she's been in the art history business for 30 years. Well, I've been in it for 50, because today I'm 71. Applause. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Happy birthday. Ms. Sandoval: Fooled you, huh? OK. Ms. Adams spoke to the insignificance of having a view blocked for an important established national historical monument. I would like you to discount this interpretation of views and national historical monuments. All -- Mr. Fernandez: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. She has been tendered to you as an expert; her qualifications are not on the record, and we want a record that's very clear and clean, so if you can proceed and give your credentials as an expert. Ms. Sandoval: OK. I have published six books on architectural history on different countries, including the United States. I have worked -- my projects have been sponsored by Harvard University's Fogg Art Museum, the National Gallery ofArt, the American Geographical Society, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the University of Wyoming. I have circulated exhibitions all over this country of my work as an architectural photographer. I have lectured in Europe on the subjects that I have dealt with. Is that enough? Vice Chairman Sanchez: You convinced me. Ms. Sandoval: And I now live in Miami, and I know a lot about the historical architecture of Miami, and I'm a great fan of Vizcaya, and -- so, if you look at what's done around the country and around the world, one of the things that is carefully guarded at historical sites is the view and the surroundings. For instance, my family's from Virginia. I will mention three sites in Virginia. You all know that they wouldn't allow any condos within view of Washington's home, don't you? Mount Vernon. Well, my family has a connection with two of Jefferson's properties. One of my cousins owned Monticello. Monticello is on a low hill. There was a higher hill right next to it, so the Monticello Foundation made it its business to buy that hill so that the view from Monticello of the surrounding countryside would not be interfered with. Jefferson's other home, which I support financially and have done for a number of years, because it's currently under restoration, they are buying -- the Foundation there is spending a lot of its money buying the land all around there so that from Poplar Forrest you do not see condominium developments. I think you will find that in all the great historical sites, whether they were owned by presidents or not, around the country, that the view is considered to be of utmost importance to the preservation of the atmosphere and integrity of that site. I also would like to make a comment about something that Jack Luft said. He said that what drives the population to a location is the housing. Well, it isn't. It's the jobs. It's the economic possibilities, and that's whether you are on the Oregon Trail -- you're not going out west to the Willamette Valley to look for a house. You're looking for land where you can make a living; the same with people coming here. The City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 people who come here, whether they're crossing the border from Mexico, from Central America, or coming on boats from Haiti or Cuba, they're not looking for a house. They're looking for a job, economic opportunity, and so this idea that we should build all this housing, it's a great fallacy being promoted by the government of the City ofMiami, is not what we need here. What we need is the Beacon Council to do its work and get some industry and jobs established here. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Julie [sic]. All right. OK Counsel, any other witnesses? Jay Williams: Good afternoon -- I guess good evening, Commissioners. I'm Jay Williams, Assistant County Attorney, here on behalf of the County Commission, and I want to make it clear that the Vizcayans have very kindly let me jump in the line in front of them. I'm not going to take 45 minutes, hopefully less than five, but my time should not take away from their time. They should get their full amount of time because I am not the Vizcayans; I'm representing the County. That being said, once again my name is Jay Williams, Assistant County Attorney, our County offices are at 111 Northwest 1st Street in your beautiful city. I'm here with Leigh McDonald, who is also an Assistant County Attorney, and the interim director of our Planning and Zoning Department, Subrata Basu. We'll just make a very brief presentation, mostly by Mr. Basu, and if you should have any other questions, we'll be happy to answer them. I have been a land use attorney for a long time, but I'm used to sitting where your City Attorney is now and advising counsel, not so much as being on this side of the podium, so it's a little bit different prospective for me today, butl thank you for the opportunity. The County Commission asked me to appear here, not as a governmental entity, but more as a neighboring property owner, the owners of Vizcaya, who will be impacted by this proposed development, and our Commission made it clear to me, and asked me to do my best to make it clear to you, that they don't want to wish -- to be wished to be perceived as having come here to sort of dictate any type of result to you, or to try to, in any way, usurp your zoning authority. We're here strictly as property owners, and we want to be considered as you would other property owners any time you make a zoning decision. That being said, however, as you're all aware, Vizcaya is one of the County's and indeed, one of your City's prized attractions, and it's a place both the City and the County are, rightfully, very proud of so the County, as the owner of Vizcaya, is naturally concerned about any potential negative impacts this proposed development might have on our shared historic landmark. To that end, the Commission wanted you to have the benefit of all the relevant information about the project's potential impact on Vizcaya, and therefore instructed our County Planning and Zoning Department, which Mr. Basu is now heading up, to prepare a written analysis of that project's potential impacts on Vizcaya, and having heard some of the comments from Commissioner Sarnoff earlier today, it's apparent that some of you have already -- some, if not all of you, have already received that report through the County Manager, but we will be presenting that into the record. In any event, we want to thank you for the opportunity to appear here. I would now like to introduce Subrata Basu, who is going to very briefly summarize that report that came through the Manager's Office, and tell you his conclusions and recommendations. Thank you. Subrata Basu: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Basu: Thank you, Jay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. Thank you for allowing me -- allowing us to speak here. For the record, my name is Subrata Basu, I'm the interim director of the Planning and Zoning in Miami -Dade County. My address is 111 Northwest 1st Street, Miami, Florida. I'm going to submit this -- the resolution that was approved by the BCC, Board of County Commissioners, to the Clerk. As you all know, Vizcaya Museum and Gardens is a County -owned facility, and I'm here to represent the County as a property owner, as Jay mentioned. Vizcaya is not only listed in the National Register for Historic Places, but it has a rare distinction of being the first national landmark in Miami -Dade County from a building point of structure. First national landmark structure in Miami -Dade City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 County, and Biltmore is the second one that was -- that received that distinction in 1996, and Vizcaya received it, I'm not sure when, but before that, long before that. While we believe that the proposed development may not or will not have direct impact, such as noise, traffic, shadows, dust, we, however, believe that the impact -- it impacts one of the most prominent attributes of Vizcaya, the view of the house and the garden -- view from the house and the garden. The most important design characteristics of the garden is the juxtaposition of a formal garden, irrespective of its shape and condition it is. The formal garden against a natural hammock, that was the most characteristic -- important characteristic of the design. The purpose of that juxtaposition was that insulates Vizcaya from the visual intrusion of the surrounding urban areas, and was designed to visually transport a visitor to another time and place. This sensory perception is crucial to the historic intent and conception of the visitor experience of Vizcaya. Visual impact of the proposed towers would impact this feeling of immersion the visitor currently experiences. We also believe that the compromised view of the garden may have a negative impact on the revenue it generates. I understand there has been some proposals talked about that could be lowering the height, and we really haven't had a full opportunity to review it, but we encourage by this change and we recommend that the cooperative negotiations that the developer is having with the Vizcaya Trust, as well as other neighbors continue, and we also urge the Board that the developer meet all the conditions in the staff recommendation, condition number 11, which talks about scale and FAR, to the extent that the FAR translates into the height reduction, and with that, I will stop, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before -- sir, are you done? Hr. Basu: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there any questions from the dais? Commissioner Sarnoff Yeah, I have a question. Hr. Basu: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Do you have a recommendation for height? Hr. Basu: No, I don't. Commissioner Sarnoff Have you considered variations in height? Hr. Basu: I've reviewed what has been presented. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Basu: I'm not authorized to, at this point -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Hr. Basu: -- give a recommendation. Commissioner Sarnoff OK, thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Before we go on, sir, do we have any other witnesses? Hr. Williams: No other witnesses. Just wanted to inquire of the Commission if they wished us to stay around or if -- City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Williams: -- they're OK if we go home to our families? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, hold on, because you might be cross-examined. Counsel on the other side, appellant? Is there going to be any cross-examination? Mr. Shubin: One minute. Vice Chairman Sanchez: One minute. All right. You may proceed with cross-examination, and then we'll have the other attorney -- is the other attorney going to bring forward any expert witnesses? Yes? OK. Mr. Basu: You're going to cross-examine Jay or -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Basu: -- me? Mr. Shubin: I think just you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Counsel, cross-examination? Mr. Shubin: I just really want to clarify something for the record, Mr. Basu. Mr. Basu: OK. Mr. Shubin: I have before me a copy of the report from George Burgess to Bruno Barreiro dated March 20, 2007, titled `Report on the Impact of the Proposed 300 Grove Bay Residence Development on Vizcaya Museum and Gardens." When you make reference to a County staff report, is that the staff report to which you were making reference? Mr. Basu: Yes, sir. Mr. Shubin: On page three of the report, there is a specific finding, and I'm just going to publish it. The project does not appear to have any adverse physical impact, such as noise, shadows, dust, or traffic on the Vizcaya property. Does that accurately summarize the opinion of the County? Mr. Basu: That is a statement that we made in the memo, yes. Mr. Shubin: Do you know of any adverse physical impacts, as you are here today, regarding noise on the Vizcaya property? Mr. Basu: From the information I have, I cannot believe that would be the case. Mr. Shubin: And, in fact, Vizcaya regularly has events at its property which creates and generates noise, correct? Mr. Basu: You would have to ask Vizcaya on that. I don't -- Mr. Shubin: Have you ever done -- are you aware of any shadowing effects that would be created by the proposed project? Mr. Basu: I don't -- unless you keep building the building higher -- at this point, no. City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Shubin: What about dust or traffic? Mr. Basu: I cannot imagine that could be a significant issue. Mr. Shubin: So the only issue is -- Mr. Basu: View. Mr. Shubin: -- view? Mr. Basu: Yes. Mr. Shubin: And are you familiar with the fact that under Florida law, a claim of obstructed view does not constitute a legally cognizable interest for the purpose of standing? Mr. Basu: I've been made aware of that. Mr. Shubin: Would the proposed lowering of the project potentially have a more favorable impact on your recommendations and opinion? Mr. Basu: Well, we're not making recommendations. All we're doing is making an impact analysis, and that's what our duty was. Mr. Shubin: But lowering the building certainly wouldn't increase any perceived impacts, would it? Mr. Basu: Well, lowering of the buildings will definitely minimize the impact of the experience that visitors experience in the garden. Mr. Shubin: What about a proposed tree buffer, or additional mitigation, in the form of landscaping, would that potentially also mitigate the perceived impacts as set forth in your report? Mr. Basu: There could be number of mitigations, including landscaping, but that's something that has to be looked at carefully and designed properly. Mr. Shubin: Thank you for your time and your testimony. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further questions, counsel? No? All right, sir. I don't believe so. Counsel, any cross-examination of any other of the expert witnesses? No? Thank you so much. You're free to stay, but you're free to go. Unidentified Speaker: All right. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Counsel, you're recognized for the record. Ms. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Lynn Lewis, with offices at 1390 Brickell Avenue in the City ofMiami. I'm here on behalf of the Vizcayans. Its address is 3251 South Miami Avenue. Along with the Vizcayans, I represent Alva and Betty Chapman, 1390 South Bayshore Lane, in the City ofMiami, and along with them, Kathy Jones, 3 Grove Isle, in the City ofMiami. You have heard a lot about the Vizcayans. Let us tell you what they are. It's a Florida not -for -profit tax exempt corporation. It was founded in 1957 to support Vizcaya. That's the Vizcayans' mission in life, to support Vizcaya. This City Commission recognized, back in 1984, the importance of Vizcaya when this body designated Vizcaya as a heritage and conservation City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 district. The Vizcayans are not saying no development on the Mercy Hospital site, and we agree with some of your staffs recommendations that the project is out of scale with the area and that the rezoning should be consistent with R-3. We have noted -- I have noted in the record certain procedural irregularities that I'm not going to bore you with tonight because we have important testimony for you to hear from persons who are historians, from planners, and from interested neighbors. I will tell you, however, that we do think that this body lacks jurisdiction to hear this case tonight because the -- of the failure of the legal advertisement to comply with statute. I've raised that in detail with your staff. We also note to you, and you will see this in your -- in our presentations, that there are errors in the legal description of this property that is in the form of the application that went before the various advisory boards and also went before this Commission back on January 25. That problem with the legal description pervades this application and staffs review, and will cause you, we submit, some problems also, but rather than hear from me, since you've heard from an awful lot of lawyers today, I'd like the Vizcayans team to address the Commission, and I'd like to start with Dr. Joel Hoffman, who is the executive director of Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. Joel Hoffman: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, and thank you for allowing us to speak on behalf of Vizcaya today. I'm going to say a few words about the importance of Vizcaya to our community and the adverse impact of this project as proposed. For the record, I'm Joel Hoffman, executive director of Vizcaya Museum and Gardens, a position I've held since January of 2004. I will also share with you my -- a bit of my credentials. I have a Master's Degree and Doctorial Degree in art and architectural history from Yale University, and my professional experience is in both the realms of historic preservation and museum work. For the record, I also want to be sure that you know that in recent years, Vizcaya's leadership has very much focused on enhancing the care of the collections and buildings at Vizcaya, on reducing facility rentals, and on establishing programs to make Vizcaya a more accessible and more engaging resource for the Miami -Dade community. A little bit about Vizcaya. You may know that it was built by American businessman James Deering from 1914 through the early 1920's. Vizcaya is widely considered a local and national treasure. Museum Magazine, for example, called it the finest private house ever built in America, and its extraordinary gardens are considered unique in the nation. Many of us believe that Vizcaya's architecture and gardens are particularly special for their blending of European design and art with Miami's subtropical environment plants and building materials. Vizcaya is definitely special too for its role in the history of Miami, dating back to what we might consider the City's pioneer days, and involving approximately one -tenth of the area's residents in its construction, including immigrants from Europe and the Caribbean. Since Vizcaya opened to the public as one of South Florida's first museum over 50 years ago, it has welcomed millions upon millions of distinguished visitors, including heads of state on diplomatic missions, schoolchildren, through senior citizens on educational excursions, and quinceaneras and young couples celebrating some of life's most significant and precious occasion. For its special collections and cultural significance, Vizcaya has earned accreditations by the American Association ofMuseums. This is a status obtained by fewer than five percent of all museums in the United States, and carries with it very rigorous requirements for performance of collections, care, and service to the public. You've heard that, in 1994, Vizcaya became the first architectural property in Miami -Dade County to receive the coveted designation of National Historic Landmark from the federal government, and it remains Miami -Dade County's only publicly -owned national historic landmark. This distinction is granted to fewer than three percent of all structures on the National Register of Historic Places, and it is determined by strict criteria of the site significant to our nation's history and culture. Vizcaya's formal gardens are specifically noted in this national designation as important contributing resources to the significance of this landmark site, and referring to some earlier comments about possible means of mitigation, it's extremely important to note that this historic garden cannot be re -landscaped at random to conceal new construction, as this would certainly diminish the historic integrity of the property. In addition to being a national historic landmark and an accredited museum, Vizcaya also provides economic benefits to our community. Each year the museum attracts approximately $1 million in admissions, approximately $1.2 million in City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 facility rentals, a number that has not gone down, although the number of events has decreased by approximately 50 percent over the last several years; approximately $450, 000 in photo permit fees are accrued by Vizcaya, and prior to the very damaging hurricanes of 2005, our concession operator historically grossed approximately 800,000 per year in cafe and shop sales. In addition, the museum serves approximately 175,000 visitors each year, including 3,500 schoolchildren and about 14,000 residents who attend our free Sundays program each year to enjoy educational programs at the site. You've heard this before, but I think it's important to repeat; that Vizcaya is attractive to visitors from near and far, for the immersive experience it affords. For a brief moment while at Vizcaya, visitors can imagine themselves in a distant place and time, far from the hustle and bustle of modern Miami. The New York Post said it very well in 1999 stating, 'A few hours visit to Vizcaya isn't just like stepping back in time, it's like experiencing 400 years of Europe without having to dust off your passport." You've also heard that Vizcaya's designers intended to insulate the property from the surrounding city and to visually define the estate as a developed precinct of cultivation in the midst of the wilderness of the hammock and the mangroves. In this respect, it's important to note that it's very different from the urban spaces that have been referenced at some of these hearings, such as Central Park, which were always intended to be urban spaces with architecture surrounding them. Although Miami has certainly grown into a thriving metropolis over the life span of Vizcaya, our community has succeeded in substantially preserving the sense of serenity at this estate. Critical to the success of this preservation has been the principally domestic scale in the north Coconut Grove area to the south of Vizcaya, for it's in this direction we do refer to this as the south, that Vizcaya's main house faces, generous windows and doors, terraces, open out onto the gardens that are expansive and certainly without peer in our city, state, and nation. James Deering intentionally constructed his property close to the northern edge of his site, aware of the fact that downtown was already beginning to rise, and desirous of creating small openings and trees, literally to turn the development away from that urban growth towards the far more bucolic and residential Coconut Grove area. You've heard about the impact of the decades long development in downtown Miami on Vizcaya, and my personal opinion is that this has had a rather minimal impact on Vizcaya because it is fruly only visible from peripheral parts of the gardens. On the contrary, the project, as proposed, would have a dramatic effect on Vizcaya and, in turn, on our community, and although there may not be a legal basis for concluding that this project, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on Vizcaya's feeling and setting, common sense and the opinion of other experts that you'll hear from later suggests something to the contrary. Unless substantially reduced, the towers would dominate the view from Vizcaya's house and gardens, negating the estate's capacity to transport its visitors to another time and place and grounding them very firmly in 21 st century Miami. On March 2, 2007, Vizcaya's governing body, the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, passed Resolution 029208, concluding that the height and scale of the 300 Grove Bay Residences Project, as proposed, is out of scale with the area surrounding Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. That, if approved, it would have significant adverse impact on Vizcaya Museum and Gardens as a historic property. The Trust further concluded that the project should be modified and reduced to a height no higher than a line of site above the currently visible Mercy Hospital buildings. In conclusion, while high-rise development is certainly an identifying and vital element ofMiami economic and cultural identity, to severely diminish the City's one public national historic landmark, rather than substantially diminishing the height of this project, is to announce to the world that we, as a community, consider development far more important as a civic value than history and culture. As stewards of a small piece of our nation's patrimony, we respectfully urge the City ofMiami Commission to limit the height and scale of development on this site so that it does not negatively impact the view from Vizcaya. Thank you for your consideration. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chairman -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff -- can I just speak to Ms. Lewis for a moment? Ms. Lewis, you kind of City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 drop a bomb, sitting here as an attorney, when you tell me that this tribunal has no jurisdiction, and you get up and you say that there is an inaccurate description of the land. Are you supposing, or are you telling us, that this was purposeful, or are you suggesting any motive behind this? Ms. Lewis: I'm ascribing no motivation. I'm reporting our factual review of the legal advertisement in comparison -- that was published in the Miami Herald on the 20 -- on the 17th. We reviewed the legal advertisement in comparison with the requirements of the statute, and just to orient the Commission, the statute is 166041. That's the statute that talks about how big the type must be, and perhaps you all are familiar with that, and that statute requires that the major street names, as means of identification of the general area, must be reflected on a map which is published in the legal advertisement. We've looked at the legal advertisement. It contains a map; it does not contain any street names. Commissioner Sarnoff Let me ask the question differently. Are you contending in any way that by describing the property in a different way, that they're frying to not show an adjacent neighborhood, or something along those lines? Ms. Lewis: No, Commissioner Sarnoff, I'm not saying that. Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you. Ms. Lewis: OK Our next testifying witness is Richard Heisenbottle. Richard Heisenbottle: And ifMr. Heisenbottle may get the attention of the audio -video folks in the back and ask them to see if they can put his presentation up on the screen, that would be appreciated. Mr. Fernandez: Have you been sworn in, sir? Mr. Heisenbottle: Yes, sir, I have. Let me tell you a little bit about myself for those of you who may not know me, some of you do very well. My name is Rich Heisenbottle, I'm a fellow of the American Institute ofArchitects, and coming -- speaking to you as a preservation expert today. I've spent ten years on your own City ofMiami Historic Preservation Board. I'm qualified for this role not only by my education, but by the numerous awards that I have won from both the American Institute ofArchitects, the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Trust. I will forgo any further description of myself if you would, and just merely submit, along with other documents that I'm going to present for the record to the Clerk. Ladies and gentlemen, when Vizcaya approached me about reviewing the impact that this project would have, I first went out to the site and tried to visualize for myself firsthand on a Sunday morning, what it would look like ifI would walk the site and this project would be built. I went to the major view corridors and even bright and early on a Sunday morning I saw hundreds of tourists out there. I think we had a busload of Japanese tourists that day, Joel, and they were literally taking the same sort of photographs that I was ultimately going to take here. Vizcaya has certainly transformed very much since this photograph, taken in 1934, that depicts the entire village before the Mercy Hospital site, and we will certainly change very, very much in the future, but without a doubt, the biggest change that could possibly occur here would be to allow the construction of the three buildings that we see depicted here from the water's edge and here from the direction of Vizcaya, this utilizing Arquitectonica's renderings. We should also point out, and I'd like to -- we would also like to point out that while the zoning fact sheet says that there is no effect of this rezoning on Neighborhood Conservation District 3, NCD-3, the boundaries of that district, for the most part, are visible on this aerial photograph bounded, certainly by the Bay, certainly by Route 1, certainly by 27th Avenue on the south, and the Rickenbacker Causeway on the north. It is really hard for me to imagine how this could not have an affect on NCD-3; how this could occur with the existence of NCD-3 is amazing. City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Notwithstanding, we went and viewed the area that -- the view corridor that would be most impacted by this development, and you see that highlighted in red here. We analyzed very carefully Arquitectonica's submittal as part of their Major Use Special Permit and developed our drawings based on their drawings that you see in this site plan. We also utilized survey data to make sure that our drawings were accurate, that the distances were correct, and this is a survey that actually shows not only the Mercy Hospital site, but the intervening site owned by the Archdiocese and the Vizcaya site. We were given access to all the information that is available in the files ofMercy Hospital, on the height of their existing buildings, and we also had the ability to take a look at the existence of the highest buildings in the area right now, Grove Isle, and understand them. Now, the buildings that you're going to see in the next slide -- the drawing that you are going to see in the next slide, is in fact a three-dimensional model that was created based on the original proposal contained in the MUSP, and we looked at that proposal from four different areas, from four key -- what we consider to be key view corridors; one from the water's edge that you can see on the lower right-hand side, and very difficult to depict here, and the other's from Diego Suarez's formal garden. With that in mind, we create -- with all of that data in hand, we created a three-dimensional model that one can rotate, tilt, and play with in the computer here, and began the process of trying to insert that into these photographs to understand its impact on the view corridor. We also wanted to test ourselves, so we looked -- and so we cut sections through this model and sections that illustrate the density, the over -scale density, the height that is so disproportionate to the highest building at Mercy Hospital now, the one right in the middle that is, in fact, the Mercy Professional Office Building. We did that because the Mercy Professional Office Building is visible from the Vizcaya site right now, and then we went ahead, and we inserted this three-dimensional model into some of the primary views that one sees as you walk around Vizcaya. This -- our rendered view number one was, in fact, tested and confirmed to be correct by another study that I've given to the Clerk over here done by Panamerican Consultants, and it's what we refer to as the balloon study. The balloon study, if you can see that one little dot in the middle, Angel, shows exactly how high this building would be. We actually flew a building over the position of building number one -- flew a balloon over the position of building number one, to a height of 410 feet, 8 inches. It confirms that the representations you see are accurate. Rendering view number two is the one that you've -- I think, now have seen before; it's from the terrace looking towards the formal garden, once again, and once again, the impact of -- on this view is tremendous, and once again, we confirm the accuracy of this by, again, having independent consultants confirm it with this balloon study. One of the things that I enjoy talking about, Angel, is that there is -- was a young lady sitting in the garden that Sunday morning, that I should have been in church, and she was painting this garden, and as I incorporated her into this photograph, I tried to wonder what this would look like -- what would she be painting if these buildings were allowed to be constructed at the heights that are being proposed? Again, we confirmed that view with the balloon study and ultimately went on to view number four, further deeper into the garden as one gets closer, and at this point, as you can see from the renderings in front of you, right in front of you on these boards, the situation is even more dramatic. Now, I would like to point out that while I believe the discussion of historic importance of Vizcaya's gardens to others, I would also like to say -- one thing I would like to say about the gardens certainly is that, in my professional opinion, the gardens are as important to Vizcaya as the villa is itself. The other thing I would like to point out to you is that during various discussions with the applicant, the applicant's architect has agreed that these illustrations reasonably represent the project as it would be viewed from Vizcaya, so there is reasonable agreement both -- from both consultants involved that this is what you are going to see if this project is built this way. I also ask you to consider this -- these views at night; to consider what this would look like at night during evening events at Vizcaya where it would glow in the dark. I think that's also important. Based on this photographic evidence, the models we've created, it is my professional opinion that if this project is allowed to be constructed as proposed, it will cause irrefutable damage materially and irrevocable harm to Vizcaya. It will forever alter the Diego Suarez designed garden, the view, the tranquility, the peacefulness of Vizcaya's garden, the integrity of the garden design will be lost. The setting is forever dramatically altered. It is almost undeniable. It will forever alter history, forever alter City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 the sense of place. It will damage Vizcaya in the same manner as if you had taken a bulldozer to the corner of the building. Now, I ask you, would any ofyou vote to invade forever, or alter, the views from Mount Vernon? Would any ofyou be willing to sacrifice the view that George Washington enjoyed when he returned home? Would any of you be willing to alter the view that Thomas Jefferson saw from Monticello? I think not. Well, what I'm asking you to do is not to alter Mr. Deering's view either. In my professional opinion, without any doubt, this project is grossly out of scale with the area. The proposed landscaping that has been suggested by the applicant, that has been shown in photographs, is a -- what I would deem a Photoshop special. It misrepresents what can be achieved with landscaping. One cannot cover up a 400-foot-tall building. The best that could every be achieved with landscaping -- with -- the landscape garden is, in fact, scheduled to be restored very shortly -- the best that could ever be achieved would be to be able to cover the existing Mercy Hospital building and obscure that view. The compromised plan reducing the height is simply inadequate. A ten percent reduction has no material effect and the building remains, Vizcaya remains, as damaged, as if you had taken a bulldozer to the corner of it. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Lewis: Our next witness is Arturo Sosa, surveyor. Mr. Sosa: OK. My name is Arturo Sosa. I'm a registered land surveyor for the last 30 years. My address is 329 Palermo Avenue in Coral Gables, and I'm here with the Vizcaya group. I want to mention to you -- and you got there, and it's also there -- that the legal description that they published for the hearing at the beginning (UNINTELLIGIBLE) don't close, plus they have two portions inside the land that there is no part of the public notice, and it's, what I feel, that the whole legal description is wrong for the hearing itself. It doesn't match; a portion vacant inside, plus they don't close, and in order to have an area, things like that, you need to have something that close. I believe that's -- it's two legal description, four legal description, and they are in the public record of the City. Chairman Gonzalez: And what is your expertise again? Mr. Sosa: It's 30 years as a land surveyor on the -- Chairman Gonzalez: Land surveyor. Mr. Sosa: Yes -- in the City. I have been in this area all my time. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Sosa? Mr. Sosa: Yes? Commissioner Sarnoff I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Do they achieve anything material, substantively, by incorrectly stating their legal description? Mr. Sosa: Not to my knowledge, I don't believe so. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Just to dispose of this issue so that you don't debate it unnecessarily, we have been in contact with Ms. Lewis, and we have looked, both our office as well as staff the claims City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 about the advertising, and the notices and the graphics were correct. The application was determined to be in substantial compliance by the Zoning Administrator. We stand by that statement, and this may be another one of the points that they would raise if, in fact, things don't go the way they would like to tonight, but we're ready to defend that, because we have thoroughly looked at it, and while, perhaps there might have been some omissions, none of them amount or constitute the type of error that's being alleged is not curable, or that would prevent this Commission from having jurisdiction, so, you know, it may be argued if you want, I don't intend to argue any further, other than to give you assurances that you're proceeding right on course. Ms. Lewis: I'm not going to argue it either. Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, I just have -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes? Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- one quick question for Mr. Heisenbottle. Where did he go? Just -- if you don't mind, I have -- I just wanted to ask you, based upon what you presented today, does this account for --I know you mentioned earlier about them adding the landscaping portion that you said basically came from Photoshop. Did you also account for them losing the nine floors? Mr. Heisenbottle: The renderings in front of you don't depict the reduction -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: They don't, right? Mr. Heisenbottle: -- in the nine floors, no -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Heisenbottle: -- but as you can see, if you were to take the nine floors off of the building, they still poke their heads well, well above the tree line. They're not masked at all. It simply is not nearly enough, Commissioner. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, butt just wanted to make sure that -- of course you weren't able to present the change because you're just getting it today, butl thought that it was important for me to at least have clarity on the fact that what you actually presented was not the new change, right? Mr. Heisenbottle: That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, thank you. Max Blumberg: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I'm Max Blumberg, 2446 Fisher Island, and cochair of the Special Preservation Committee of the Vizcayans. When I was a child up north, my mother brought me to Vizcaya every year on our annual winter migrations. She's a garden enthusiast, a sculptures, and a painter of landscapes, and half a century ago, she painted the garden of Vizcaya with its vista to the southwest. Today, at 95 years old, she still considers that the finest view ofMiami. More than anything else, memories of Vizcaya drew me back to Miami when I decided to move myself and my company here 30 years ago, bringing what's now 800 jobs to our City. I became the director of the Vizcayans, the private sector support group, its president. I was appointed by Commissioner Diaz as his representative to the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, and I visit Vizcaya almost every week, bringing visitors from all over the world. I step into the garden and I look to the southwest, to the view that my mother painted 50 years ago. One ofAmerica's most famous and distinguished landscape architects, Professor City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Lowrey Olan, coauthored an extraordinary book about Vizcaya, published just a few months ago. His extensive resume is on the record. Let me just summarize it by saying he's a giant in his field with unquestionable credentials, and these are his words. Vizcaya is a unique cultural treasure, and as such, has been declared historic property, earning status as a local and national landmark to be preserved for future generations to experience and enjoy. It was conceived, planned, designed, and built as a private tropical refuge separated from urban life. The most significant part of the Deering Estate of Vizcaya remains intact and is worthy of preservation. The house and gardens are spectacular for tourists and visitors, whether from Miami, the nation, or abroad. Together the house and gardens evoke a moment from the history ofMiami, and when you step out into the garden, you walk into the past and leave the city of today. You're contained in a sophisticated design of great skill and beauty. The vision of Deering and its designer, Diego Suarez, was to create the experience of being transported to a reverie of Italy and Spain beside the sea. This visual was successfully realized and is still astonishingly intact. It's unique in the United States. There's no other place like it. It's an icon ofAmerican landscape design and ofMiami. The view across the villa to the southwest is and always was the principal view of the entire estate. It would be a tragic mistake to destroy this iconic view with the addition of a scene of the now contemporary structures. The illusion would be shattered forever. The indulgence of living high above the bay for a few would destroy the experience, the cultural legacy, artistic achievement and pleasure to be gained by hundreds of thousands by the future generations who have yet to visit Vizcaya. The most important orientation of the gardens is to the southwest of the house, in direct line of site toward the proposed high-rise condominium towers. The fact that so many people now visit and enjoy Deering's villa and gardens, use it for their events, for their photographs and family memories, is a tribute to its unique beauty and value. To ruin what remains of the garden vista would be disastrous to the cultural landscape of what remains, and Professor Olan concludes, "The proposed project should be abandoned, or lowered to a height and scale consistent with the area and not visible from Vizcaya." As currently proposed, 300 Grove Bay residents would have a significant adverse impact on Vizcaya and its gardens. This is what the Professor said: On a fine evening myself I stood with Mayor Diaz on the grounds of Vizcaya and he told me how proud he was that such a world treasure is in Miami. The Mayor and this Commission are dedicated to making Miami a world -class City. This must mean not only building and transforming the City, but preserving those places that define its history and cultural heritage and epitomize its beauty and history. The chairman of Related Group is also chairman of the Cultural Affairs Council ofMiami. He's known to be a man devoted to artistic heritage, and truly he did not realize the impact of his project on Vizcaya, which has now been clearly demonstrated. Commissioners, today a single changed vote could protect our heritage for all time or see its essential quality destroyed forever. I ask you to consider this as one of the most far-reaching decisions you will make as a member of this Commission. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Can I ask you a question, please? Mr. Blumberg: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: You said that you represent the City? Mr. Blumberg: No. I'm a member of the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust. I don't represent the City. Commissioner Regalado: Appointed by -- no, but -- Mr. Blumberg: I was appointed by Commissioner Pepe Diaz to the Trust. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, Pepe Diaz. OK. City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Blumberg: Right. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Blumberg: Thank you. Arva Moore Parks: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I come here today wearing two hats. The first is as an expert in historic preservation, and in that capacity, I have been asked by counsel to put my qualifications on the record. I have a Master's Degree in history, my thesis being on the history of Coconut Grove. I spent more than 35 years documenting and writing the history ofMiami. I've also worked both professionally and as a volunteer in the field of historic preservation, and for more than 30 years I'm aware of all aspects of historic preservation. I was your first vice chair of your first Heritage Conservation Board, and served on the original State of Florida Historic Sites and Properties Commission for nine years. I was one of the two Floridians on the National Trust Historic Preservation Board ofAdvisors and was elected chair of the Southern Region. Finally, I had an eight year presidential appointment as an expert member of the Federal Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. During my tenure on that board, I traveled all over the country to review the impact of federal government undertaking on historic properties. Ms. Thompson: Excuse me, Chair. We've got -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: What's your name? Ms. Thompson: -- those credentials. We need a name. Ms. Moore Parks: Oh, I'm sorry. Arva Moore Parks, I live at 1601 South -- Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Moore Parks: -- Miami Avenue. Although it goes without saying that greatly respect the developer, the architect, and of course, Mercy Hospital, I cannot sit idly by when they propose R-4 condominium project, even with the revisions that they have worked to try to mitigate the negative impact, but it has not mitigated the impact on Vizcaya, the City ofMiami's only national landmark. National landmark status puts Vizcaya in the same category as the United States Capital, which limits height around it not to exceed the height of the United States Capital, and as you saw from Rich Heisenbottle, George Washington's Mount Vernon. Because of this, Vizcaya deserves special consideration, but don't stand alone, even though this is my expert opinion. I must say in my 30 years as an active preservationist, I have never seen the kind of attention and concern this project has garnered locally, by the state, and even by the nation. I respectfully disagree with my colleague, Anne Adams, saying that this has no impact on Vizcaya, but don't take my word for it, I'll go to a higher authority. I would like to put on the record a letter we received from the United States Department of Interior National Parks Service. This is the agency in the federal government that oversees the national register, the landmarks, and sets the standards for evaluating historic structures and impact on them. I'm only going to read one paragraph; you have the entire letter, but this is the pertinent paragraph. Three residential towers over 400 feet tall are proposed for land adjacent to Vizcaya. These new buildings would loom over Vizcaya and its historic gardens, compromising the historic integrity of the property and its environment because the height and scale of the new development is not visually compatible with the historic property, a historic site of national importance. The National Parks Service strongly supports local efforts to minimize the impact of adjacent new development on Vizcaya so that the history, character of this national historic landmark, including the vistas, will not be diminished. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nation's premiere preservation organization chartered by the United States Congress, considered this issue so City ofMiami Page 111 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 serious that it sent a $2, 000 grant to help in the effort -- help defray legal costs for the Vizcayans. To my knowledge, this may be the first time this has ever occurred in South Florida. Here, for the record, I read only a portion of their letter which is being passed out to you, and this is from John Hilson, the director of the Southern Region. '7'm writing on behalf of the 11,000 National Trust members in Florida to urge the Mayor, Vice Mayor and Commissioners of the City ofMiami to deny approval for the 300 Grove Bay Residential Project. The impact of the proposed project to the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens is significant and adverse by any measure." They concluded with the sentence that the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens is an extraordinary place. The only thing that I do agree that Ms. Adams had to say is that there is no law to protect Vizcaya. It does not reach the level of the federal government's 106 review. It does not even get a review by your own Heritage Conservation Board, but the good news is you have a review. All the citizens of South Florida, and even the nation, look to you to protect this irreplaceable landmark, counting on you to protect our treasure. There are many places to build condominiums, as you've heard, in South Florida and other ways to support a local, worthy hospital without desecrating a national treasure and forever impacting its historic integrity. I'm going to switch hats now. My second hat is an eyewitness observer to passage of the so-called Grovenor Ordinance that was supposed to protect G/I property from being overdeveloped in a fashion out of scale with the adjacent neighborhoods. I am no planning expert, but I've gained a lot of knowledge thanks to Commissioner Sanchez for appointing me, for the last -- five years ago, to the City ofMiami Planning Advisory Board, and for the past two years, as chair. This has given me an eyewitness view of all this that has come before the Planning Advisory Board, and what was clear to me -- I'm not speaking for the Board, I'm speaking for myself -- what was clear to me is the intent of the ordinance. It was to stop out -of -scale development being built on the former G/I property. We were even told, "Now, this won't happen again." Everyone, including the Commission -- and I went back and read the record that's already been -- told you I won't repeat it, but now what troubles me is this is the very first time a project has come before this Commission since this ordinance was passed, and we're being told that the ordinance doesn't matter. Anyone can ask for rezoning; I could ask for rezoning. I have an R-1, how about an R-4? But what is clear, it does not mean that you have to grant it. It does not mean that you have to ignore the best advice of all your citizens board who you appointed. According to my dictionary, when a person or body seeks to accomplish a given result, through a course of action, that's what intent means; to accomplish a desired result through a course of action. I feel confident that none of you who were there that day would deny that you believe the Grovenor Ordinance was intended to present -- prevent the type of action that we're seeing today. If this property is rezoned R-4, it sets a dangerous precedent for G/I properties all over Miami. Further, the most frightening part for Vizcaya is if this becomes R-4, then the Grovenor Ordinance could apply, and ifMercy decides to sell off other property, it then would be contiguous to an R-4 property. It could just snowball right down the property, right down to the wonderful neighborhood south of Vizcaya and all the way up the bay side. This project, even with revisions, is clearly out of scale with the neighborhood and gives special consideration to a land owner. That is no wonder that many, many citizens are extremely upset by the actions before you today. I have to say I am too. In conclusion, we are told that it's better -- that what is proposed is better than three 40-story medical buildings. To think that that would happen is beyond acceptable. It would also have to have a MUSP. Development [sic] say they will be second and third homes, so we're willing to let people who are not permanent residents of this great city impact on our most treasured historic landmark? I think not. This would allow a very terrible thing to happen. You were asked to approve a project that would have, in my professional opinion, a major adverse effect on the City ofMiami only national landmark, and flies in the face of the intent of the Grovenor Ordinance. We read every day now that there is an overabundance of condominiums, but there's not an overabundance of national landmarks. There is only one, and it deserves your protection. Twenty years ago, there were not enough votes on another -- in another local commission to protect a historic structure. One brave Commissioner changed her vote, giving the needed three votes. The rest is history. Without her change of vote we would not have the Biltmore Hotel, which is South Florida's other national landmark. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Applause. Mr. Shubin: Mr. Chair, I have some very, very limited cross-examination. Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Mr. Shubin: Is this an acceptable time? Mr. Fernandez: No. They have to finish, and this is your last expert, ma'am? How many more? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Two more. Chairman Gonzalez: One -- Jack Osterholt: Good evening. Chairman Gonzalez: -- have one more? Mr. Osterholt: My name is Jack Osterholt, president of Osterholt Consulting, with offices at 421 North Andrews Avenue, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Unidentified Speaker: We can't hear you. Mr. Osterholt: I'm sorry. Is that better? I'm here tonight as -- what looks like the last of a long string of planners, and in the attempt to try to not duplicate what my colleagues have said, I'm going to try to fill in those elements that thought, when I reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan, that were important but were not covered by my colleagues, so if it sounds like I'm filling in holes it's because that's exactly what I'm doing. I want to point you to -- first of all, I've focused on the future land use element of the plan because they've done a really good job of coordinating all aspects of the functional plan within the future land use element. They talk about mass transit,• they talk about other service levels, so that was the focus of my conversation here, and I want to point you to Objective L U-1.5 that talks about land development regulations will protect the City's unique natural and coastal and its historic and cultural heritage, and Policy L U-1.5.1, development orders in the City will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies contained in the natural resource conservation and coastal major elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Policy L U-1.5.2, land use regulations and development policies will be consistent with the intent of the purpose ofMiami-Dade County Waterfront Charter Shoreline Development Review Ordinances and other Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management areas. These are elements that any plan for this area must take into account. I know that this -- these plans are going to be before the Shoreline Development Review Committee at the County. I just want to make sure that everybody understands that they -- not only do they have to not conflict with what they need to support these elements. Goal L U-2, preserve and protect the heritage of the City ofMiami through the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, restoration, and public awareness ofMiami historic architectural and archeological resources. Given what Mr. Heisenbottle and our other technical experts have said, this project, in their prospective, does not support or further this goal. Objective L U-2.3, encourage the preservation of all historic architectural resources that have a major significance to the City by increasing the number of nationally and locally designated sites by the year -- between 1996 and 2000. Again, clearly this is a policy aimed at recognizing, protecting important historical sites within the County, and L U-2.5, increase public awareness to the historic, archeological, architectural resources, and cultural heritage of the City and the public policies and programs to protect and preserve this heritage through public information education programs; again, underscoring the importance of these resources to the overall plan City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 and its implementation. These are examples of how your Comprehensive Land Use Development Plan talks about the importance of historical and archeological sites. It's referred to over and over again in the plan, and one that can't be ignored. I'm not going to go through a discussion of the rezoning issues, I think they've been very well covered here today. There's been several questions about theoretical, would you consider MOBs, medical office buildings, to be an adjacent use? Would you consider -- it's very difficult to consider these things in the abstract. It's good to consider those within the structure that the City's laid out, and as was just said, that requires a Major Use Special Permit which collect lots of information, and I think that none of these proposals can be reviewed without that. I think -- again, in the use of time, I think I'm going to cut my -- rest of my comments short so that we can move things along here. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. See if we could -- Dorothy Jenkins Fields: Good evening. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Good evening. Ms. Jenkins Fields: I'm Dorothy Jenkins Fields, 5400 Northwest 22nd Avenue. By trade, I am a historian. I'm the founder and archivist of the Black Archives History and Research Foundation of South Florida. I'm a native Miamian. My maternal grandparents settled in Miami's Colored Town, now known as Overtown, in 1903, soon after Flagler extended the railroad from Palm Beach to Miami. My maternal grandfather was one of the black laborers who helped build Vizcaya, and the black laborers walked daily from Colored Town, Overtown, and Coconut Grove to that site. Vizcaya became a sense of pride for the laborers, and as a result of telling that story, I was appointed by the County Mayor and became a founding member of the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, and as a result of my work, a perpetual seat for pioneer laborers is on that board. My credentials: I have an earned Doctorate in public history, specializing in archives administration and historic preservation. I'm a member of the Academy of Certified Archivists. I'm a founding member and former chair of the Metro -Dade Historic Preservation Board, served for over 20 years, and our first executive director, Ivan Rodriguez, is here. I'm a former member of the Florida State National Register Review Board, and as a result of my research, five buildings in Overtown are on the National Register of Historic Places. Founding member, again, of the Vizcaya Trust. I initiated the acquisition, restoration and expansion of the Historic Lyric Theater and the development of the Historic Overtown Folk Life Village, now being expanded in District 5 by Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones, and in that area we have 11 remaining historic sites, which we are very protective of and we are very much concerned with new construction and new development that's coming. We want to be sure that it is compatible with what's already there. The proposed new construction for -- adjacent to Vizcaya would permanently damage the setting of Vizcaya, and I've come to this conclusion, again, through my experience and knowledge in the area for more than 30 years; that this is certainly out of scale, even with the reduction in the nine floors. The view would still be an intrusion, and it should not be passed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. I believe you have one more -- one more witness, and then what we're going to do is, all those that will be speaking, I hope that you have been sworn in. If you have not, we'll do that quickly, but let's allow Dr. Paul George. Paul George: All right. I'm Paul George, and thanks so much for taking all these hours to hear us out. I live at 1345 Southwest 14 Street in Miami. A long time Miamian, born and raised here. I've have been working on Miami's history for more than 30 years. I hold a PhD (doctor of philosophy) in history. I have written 12 books, over 100 articles and book reviews, served as editor of two history journals that deal with the area's history. I serve presently on the County's Historic Preservation Board and have for 10 years. I was on the City of Miami's Heritage Conservation Board from 1983 through '87, and I served as Manager of Historic Broward County Preservation Board for five years, 1987 to 1992, and I want to talk briefly, we don't have City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 much time, and what I'm going to say in some ways is repetitive toward what already has been said about Vizcaya, but also about the neighborhood around it. We know about the designations. This City cares about Vizcaya tremendously. That's why the Historic Heritage Conservation Disfrict was arranged in 1984 by the Commission; that's why Vizcaya is within a Neighborhood Conservation Disfrict; that's why the City Zoning Code, at one time, included this area with Vizcaya, but also the Mercy Hospital area. Commissions, both presently and before this, had been very concerned about the history of this area, this neighborhood. Now, I think it's obvious why the exalted status has been given to Vizcaya. It's a one -of -a -kind place; we know about that, but I also want to talk briefly about the neighborhood, the neighborhood of single-family homes all around Vizcaya, and what has happened in the past, and this was unveiled to me over the course of many years through research, was that when out -of -scale, or at least, perceived as out -of -scale buildings are on the drawing board in the vicinity of Vizcaya and the neighborhood around it, there has been strong neighborhood opposition to it. For example, Grove Isle initially was introduced at the outset of the 1970's as four 40-story towers, and the neighborhood rose up against that, and ultimately, it turned out to be three 18- or 19-story towers under a whole new developer by the end of the 1970's, and then there's the issue ofAlice Wainwright Park, the City desperately wanted a park there. There was a hold out in a sfrip of land that separated two halves that were already set aside as a park. Neighborhood rose up, City got behind it; they bought out this person in an area that was zoned for something other than just a park, and Alice Wainwright Park came on line in 1974, so there has been deep concern among people in the neighborhood around Vizcaya about the wonderful history of the area and the fact that it's a very singular neighborhood. Finally, just a personal aside, I had the good fortune, about six weeks ago, of attending an evening at Vizcaya, out in the gardens, on the mound, in the casino, out in front of the south loggia, the east loggia, as part of the celebration of the christening of the U.S.S. (United States Ship) Gridley, and it was a magical night, and I just don't think it would have been that way had three towers been lurking in the background. Thank you. Ms. Lewis: That's the end of our presentation. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right. They're done with their expert witnesses. Now you're afforded the opportunity for cross-examining. Anyone? Mr. Shubin: This will be very limited. I have a couple of questions ofMr. Osterholt first. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Shubin: Mr. Osterholt, I believe you testified regarding the County's role with respect to Shoreline Development Review; is that correct? Mr. Osterholt: That's correct. Mr. Shubin: And is it your opinion that the Shoreline Development Review Committee has or has not determined -- made a determination with respect to this project? Mr. Osterholt: My comment was only that it was one of the stops that need to be made connecting it with the important environmental reviews that go on in the County. Mr. Shubin: And were you aware of the fact that through Resolution 06-SRDC002, executed on August 31, 2006, the County Shoreline Development Review Committee approved the proposed project? Mr. Osterholt: Yes. Mr. Shubin: OK. That was not part of your testimony. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Let me just introduce this to the rec -- in the record. In the interest of time -- and I know this is little unorthodox, but I'll be done in a minute -- I'd like to bring up Mr. Heisenbottle and Ms. Parks. I'm going to ask them the same question. They can just answer one after the other. Do we have the renderings? I'm going to bring up -- I'd like to focus your attention on the two renderings on your left and your right. Have you seen those renderings prior to your testimony today, and in what context did you see them? Mr. Heisenbottle: I did not see the one to the right. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. You have to speak on the mike. Mr. Heisenbottle: To answer your question first, I didn't see either of the two renderings. I may have seen one -- something similar to this that Arquitectonica produced before, but certainly did not see the one on the right. Ms. Parks: I don't believe I saw that one either, although I can't -- Mr. Fernandez: On the record. Ms. Parks: I'm not sure ifI saw it. They look a lot alike. Mr. Shubin: Do you know what those renderings are intended to represent? Mr. Heisenbottle: I can only surmise they're intended to represent the project. Mr. Shubin: The project as proposed -- Mr. Heisenbottle: As -- Mr. Shubin: -- or the project as proposed at a lower height? Mr. Heisenbottle: Clearly, the one on the right is the project proposed at a lower height. Ms. Parks: That's option one, lower height. Mr. Shubin: And, in fact, the project as proposed shows additional landscaping; is that correct? Ms. Parks: Yes. I know how to use Photoshop, too. Mr. Shubin: And, in fact, Mr. Olan used Photoshop in his book to recreate some of the images of canopy, particularly -- and I have the page reference -- Figure 76 at page 108. Are you familiar with the use of Photoshop to recreate or to designate canopy on a site? Mr. Heisenbottle: Yes. There is an altered photograph in Mr. Olan's book. I don't know that Mr. Olan actually altered that photograph. The point of all of this discussion was how much can landscaping do to --from this perspective to alter the height of a 410-story building. You can't mask it. You can, at best, mask the 110-foot tall Mercy building. That's what I've been saying, and that's what continue to say. Mr. Shubin: Two more questions: Do you think this rendering constitutes an improvement over the rendering that you showed to the Commission, from the standpoint of Vizcaya's view? Mr. Heisenbottle: An improvement? Yes. Is it -- does it go all the way? No. Is it still going to overpower the garden? Yes. Is it still going to be in your face when you're in the Vizcaya Garden? Yes, counselor. City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Shubin: Well, to use a legal term, how do you define "all the way"? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Come on. Listen, we'll be here until 2 o'clock in the morning, come on. Unidentified Speaker: Joe, didn't -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think the point has been made. Mr. Heisenbottle: Didn't Bill Clinton answer that question once? No, no, I'm not going there. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Shubin: One last point here. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Come on, let's get going. Mr. Shubin: In fact, let me show you another rendering that was prepared with additional frees using Photoshop. Have you seen this rendering before, on the right? Mr. Heisenbottle: I have not seen it before, no. Mr. Shubin: And does this rendering, in fact, represent an improvement over the first rendering or over your rendering? Mr. Heisenbottle: Yes, it does constitute an improvement. Mr. Shubin: Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the frees designated here are similar to the trees designated in Mr. Olan's book, in the plate to which we made reference? Mr. Heisenbottle: Mr. Olan's book, in the photograph in the book which is very similar to the one, an untouched version of the one that I used in my PowerPoint presentation, is at such a scale you couldn't possibly understand which tree is planted where. You know, our feelings about this are summarized in some sections that my colleague has just sent to us. You know, we believe that from different vantage points, different buildings need to be very different heights in order for them not to be viewed from Vizcaya, in order for them to be potentially, potentially masked. You know, tower number three, in -- from some of the different sites, needs to be as low as 174 feet in order for it not to be masked, not to be seen. Tower number two needs to be as low as 166 feet, counselor. Tower number one would have to go down to 228 feet. What we're doing with the Photoshop here is not really realistic. It can't be realistic; you can't overshadow, you know, a building from, you know, with trees from these distances. Mr. Shubin: I didn't hear -- did you -- What word did you use in terms of shadow? Mr. Heisenbottle: You cannot overshadow -- the free overshadow the height of a 410-story -- 410foot tall building. Lower heights could achieve that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Shubin: OK. I have no further questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let's go. Thank you. All right, is that it? You're not going to cross-examine anybody else? Mr. Shubin: No. City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. At this time we're going to go to the public, all right? What we'll do is, has anyone -- did anyone walk in that was not sworn in? Let's go ahead and swear everybody in, Madam Clerk. All those that will be testifying on this item, you'll be limited to two minutes, please. Two minutes, all right? So those that will be testifying that have not been sworn in, please raise your hand. Madam Clerk, could you swear them in? The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You cannot testify. You swore in with your left. OK All right. We'll go ahead and start. Just take [sic] a line on both podium, rotate. Two minutes. Sir, you are recognized for the record. First, you have to state your name and address and then you can proceed. Sir? Ivan Rodriguez: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the City Commission. My name is Ivan Rodriguez. I'm director ofMiami-Dade Office of Historic Preservation, 111 Northwest 1st Street. I'm also the staff director of the Miami -Dade Historic Preservation Board. The Historic Preservation Board, at its meeting last Wednesday, March 21, passed a resolution that I will enter into the record with the City Clerk in a second. Basically, the resolution is expressing concern over the scale of the proposed project, and since we've been around, you know, throwing credentials, I would like to say that I,, too, have a Master's in architectural history and historic preservation. I have been leading the Historic Preservation Program for Miami -Dade County for the past 29 and a half years. I guess that's my qualification for being before you here in addition to representing the board. I don't want to repeat what has already been very eloquently expressed by Joel Hoffman and Arva Parks and Mr. Olan and so many that have come before me. That makes my job a lot easier, but I think James Deering created a theme fantasy here of yes, you know, the words have already been said, I'm sorry to repeat them, but transporting -- creating an experience that transports, whether it was himself or the visitors nowadays, to another time and place, and that is terribly important. At the risk of sounding very academic, I'm going to take just -- and say just a couple of sentences about this. Garden designer, Diego Suarez, when he designed these gardens, he created on purpose, he manipulated the landscape to create a self-contained garden in the fashion of the late Italian renaissance and manors gardens, and there's a reason why I'm saying this, as opposed to going into the Baroque garden experience, where there are endless vistas with monuments at the end. When Anne Adams spoke as an architectural historian, I think there was something that was missing there in the sense that the historical integrity of the property would be greatly compromised because it changes from that self-contained garden to now there is a vista with a monument at the end, so that changes everything. The other thing that I want to make very clear also is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, with due respect, your two minutes are up. In conclusion -- and then what we want to do is we want to be able -- Mr. Rodriguez: Thirty seconds? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no. It's not giving up time and stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect, you're limited to two minutes. You can say a lot in two minutes if you don't -- you know, please. Please, we're asking -- Mr. Rodriguez: Fifteen seconds? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you to respect us, so please. City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Rodriguez: Fifteen seconds? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Fifteen seconds. Mr. Rodriguez: All right. All I want to say is, this is a national historic landmark and on the National Register of Historic Places, as Ms. Adams said, but the important thing is that it's also locally designated, and it makes it the gem, the crowning jewel of this community, and it's very important to the community in general, not just based on the criteria at the national level, but locally to everyone that is here. Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. All right, please. Two minutes. Becky Matkov: OK. Good evening, I'm Becky Matkov, executive director of Dade Heritage Trust, the largest nonprofit historic preservation organization in Miami -Dade County. As a nonprofit dedicated to preserving Miami's architectural and cultural heritage, we have fought for years to defend Miami's historic landmarks and neighborhoods from the negative impacts of massive, out -of -scale new development. In far too many cases, for far too long, the City of Miami has ignored this issue for short -- opting for short-term gain at the expense of long-term quality of life. Surely, in this instance, when the most important historic landmark in our City and one of the most important landmarks in America is negatively impacted, you, our Commissioners, will stand firm and say no. Dade Heritage Trust urges you to not approve any project for this site that's taller in height than the current Mercy Hospital buildings, and to protect and preserve the scenic corridor ofMiami's greatest historic treasure. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. You have 27 minutes left -- seconds left, sorry. Sir? John Hinson: My name is John Hinson, 1111 Brickell Avenue. I don't have to qualify as an expert, but I'm a real estate developer. I have a difference of opinion with my friend, Jorge Perez, about the height of his buildings. I'm a volunteer with the Vizcayans and have been active in frying to understand what his proposed project would do to Vizcaya and to help mitigate those effects and protect and preserve Vizcaya, not as some people have said, and Mr. Matuska said for 10 years, but for future generations. We need to preserve this treasure. I've told Jorge that his buildings might be great, but either they're in the wrong place or they're just way too tall. They're too tall by half, not ten percent. The Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust passed a resolution asking for the tallest buildings to be governed by a line of sight from the studied locations on the Vizcaya grounds over the existing Mercy Hospital buildings, which would result in buildings not reduced by ten percent, or even twenty percent, but by fifty to sixty percent. They need to be half as tall. I'm sorry, Jorge, but I feel strongly about this. As to planting frees, we're going to restore the garden. I'm talking fast, but we can't -- as I told his people -- I met with them time and time again. I met with Jorge, and we appreciate his willingness to meet and talk with us, but I said we can't just willy-nilly plant trees in the garden. The GOB (General Obligation Bond) funding is going to restore Vizcaya and the garden. We can't change the historic nature of the architecture without it being studied, and the threat of a 41-storyACLF (Adult Care Living Facility) is just that. Nobody's going to build a 41-story nursing home. They just don't happen in this country, nowhere in this country, but if they did, ifMercy wanted to build a nursing home of 400 feet in height, we'd be back here, we'd be talking about it here, so the threats, please, just don't threaten us like that. Five, four, thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You -- I didn't even know you had a timer there. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, you got a timer? Mr. Hinson: Yeah. There's a timer right -- City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's no excuse. Mr. Hinson: Well, no, you have to look up. Maurice Wiener: Hinson is giving me his exfra time. I appreciate that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much, sir. Mr. Hinson: It's gone, Maurice. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Two minutes, sir. Mr. Wiener: I'm Maurice Wiener. I live at 1734 South Bayshore Lane, which is a street that directly overlooks this site. My house is a single-family home that directly overlooks this site. I'm also here representing Grove Isle Associates. Our company owns the part of the island that directly faces this proposed development, and I'm speaking in both capacities. We've heard from people from Tallahassee, to Fort Lauderdale, to here and there, but this is an issue that is really about Miami, and this is not about traffic and view corridors and building designs or neighborhood aesthetics. This is about health and safety. Mercy Hospital is a very important institution to this region. It is Coconut Grove's largest employer. Coconut Grove is losing all its wonderful historic buildings. The Playhouse is gone, the Museum of Science will soon be gone, and Mercy Hospital represents one of the few major institutions we have left where people can get good healthcare and work and live presumably in the proximity. I'd like to talk about the compatibility. I live in the neighborhood. This is not a bucolic suburban area with houses on three acres. I overlook a 15-story building in front of me. I've got three 20-story or 18-story buildings to the right of me. Vizcaya has parties constantly where they shoot off fireworks at midnight 400 feet into the air, so you know, they're painting this as if we live in some sort of suburban area 100 miles from town. It's not. This is an urban part of this city, and I submit to you that the -- it's a vital element of Coconut Grove, and if we lose Mercy Hospital, we will lose not only the access to the healthcare, which is more important than aesthetics or traffic, but we will lose an institution that employs people, and this is -- you'll hear from all these condominium people about views and view corridors, butt never heard them say what they did to mitigate everybody else's view when they built their place, so this is strictly not in my neighborhood, and I'd submit that the City ofMiami should protect this institution because it serves all ofMiami. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Two minutes, please. Ma'am, state your name and address for the record. Ellie Haydock: Ellie Haydock, I live at 1617 Tigertail Avenue. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mike. Don't be scared. Ms. Haydock: I live at 1617 TigertailAvenue, and I'm back with the LEGOs, and I've changed my presentation because now I hear that they're considering breaking down to 28 stories. I wanted to show you now, because I have LEGOs, that, yeah, you can shrink it down, but not enough, because you have got to look at the bulk, and I happen to have this bottle of water, so it is just so incompatible and I'm just so afraid that this could happen anywhere in the City, not just my neighborhood, and the other last thing that wanted to point out is that called Rich Heisenbottle's office and I asked him the ceiling height of this room. To those rafters, it is 28 feet. Now, 28 feet with this same proportion, would mean that R-1 would be one and a halffeet, so I want you to feel what it's like that you're 6 inches in maybe -- here is 12 feet right here, one story, and now we go up to two stories, so your 6 inches in comparison to 28 feet of -- Hs. Thompson: Chair, I'm sorry, she's not recording because she's not on the mike. City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah -- Ms. Haydock: I just wanted you -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but you made your point. Ms. Haydock: -- to feel that sensation of the 28 feet to the 6 inches, and how it's just not compatible with the neighborhood. Please keep that in mind. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Sir? Andrew Hague: Andrew Hague, address withheld pursuant to Florida Statute, but suffice it to say I live within two houses on South Bayshore Drive, within the Halissee entrance to this project. I'm finding myself on a different side of this argument because normally I may be against this project, but -- and I'm a supporter of Vizcaya. I listen to their music all the time, whether I want to or not, but the fantasy of Vizcaya sort of ends when you get on South Bayshore Drive because South Bayshore is fraffic heavy as it is, and I would like this Commission to buy the property and use it as a park, but that's not practical, and what we have here is aesthetics versus practicality. It's not going to be bought as a park. I'd like it to be turned into high -end homes. That's not going to happen because you have Mercy Hospital right there, so what are the alternatives? This project, which will be less traffic dense than the alternative, which could be a -- maybe FIU (Florida International University) would come in and use it as their medical school campus with dorms or whatever could be in there, or a high -occupancy office complex, which would be fraffic in and out all day long, or it could be a thousand space retirement home. Who knows? I have difficulty now getting in and out of my driveway. Anything that is less dense, less traffic intense than what is propo -- what could happen without a hearing, to me, is beneficial for the fraffic up and down South Bayshore Drive, so I'm seeking the protection of this Commission to limit what could be more intense traffic on South Bayshore Drive, which this project proposes because of the occupancy level, so that's why I'm in favor of this project because it offers the lesser of two evils. They propose less occupancy, less traffic, and allows me to get in and out of my driveway and allows me to get to work. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir? Jason Bloch: Thank you. Jason Bloch, 3501 West Glencoe Sfreet. I am also the president of the Glencoe Neighborhood Association. I know you've probably heard all of the issues that are going to be raised, but owe it to my neighbors and my members to speak to you once again, and just to remind the Commission, this is the proposed project site. This is Glencoe Sfreet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And who -- once again, who are you representing? Mr. Bloch: The Glencoe Neighborhood Association, andl could tell you, Commissioner Spence -Jones, in response to your question earlier about whether or not this new revised proposal was ever presented to anyone, that the developer never approached me and never approached our association, or any of the homeowners, the houses, at least according to our latest meeting, about any of these changes, so we were not privy to it. They still, since our last meeting, having not approached us. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And, I believe in the last meeting, you -- -- one of the subject -- things that came up was you were newly formed organization, right? Mr. Bloch: We were. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And I, you know, support that because again, you know, I think that came up in one of our Commission meetings that depending on what the issues are, City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 sometimes people have to come together for certain reasons, so that's not to take anything away from it. I don't care if you formed it the day before, if you felt that it was an important issue. Mr. Bloch: Thank you, Commissioner. It was newly formed, and I can tell you now we're up and running. We're getting involved in probably -- in other issues as well, but just to let you know that we are directly impacted, and to remind the Commission, this is something that your Zoning Board disapproved, your Planning Board said not to approve. Your Planning Department says it's completely out of scale. Now you have a whole panel of respected professionals and -- that have told you why this is so inappropriate for so many reasons. It almost makes the issues that me and my neighbors concerned about seem small in comparison, but I can tell you, the issues, such as sound and traffic, and dust, and shadows, are issues that have not been addressed with me and my neighbors and our association, even though they might not impact Vizcaya directly, they're going to impact us. You've heard about how it's going to impact the Vizcaya view, and the view virtually from anywhere in Coconut Grove. If you walk down Bayshore, you are not going to be able to avoid seeing this project. The fraffic studies did not take into account the closures in Bay Heights Association, andl again, I would remind the Commission that virtually all of the support ftom the neighborhood that came at the last meeting was from people like the last -- Mr. Hague from the community, who's concerned about increased potential fraffic. Not that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: In conclusion. Mr. Bloch: In conclusion, it is the boogeyman that the developer has put out there that alternative uses are going to create more traffic. In order for that to happen, a million square feet of office space, for example, they would have to come back to this Commission and have to get your approval, and I suggest, for all the reasons you've already heard, that wouldn't be appropriate either. We urge you to vote against it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir? Agustin Arellano: Good evening. My name is Agustin Arellano. I live at 8580 School House Road, in Miami, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Mercy Hospital Foundation, of which I am a member of the board. We support this project for a number of reasons, but because time is short, one, this is the least obstructive of all the options that Mercy Hospital has to build on this site. There is going to be some improvements made to the road and the boardwalk, which will be used by all the neighbors, and most importantly, the money used from the revenues collected on the sale will be used to improve the facilities atMercy Hospital, which will allow them to provide better healthcare for all the citizens of the City ofMiami, so I urge you to support this project. Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir? Raul Ramirez: My name is Dr. Raul Ramirez, and my area of expertise, I've been intimately associated with the North Grove for over 30 years, where I own multiple properties, and I own property in Grove Isle across from Mercy Hospital, and I work for over 25 years -- Commissioner Sarnoff Dr. Ramirez, could you speak closer to the mike? Mr. Ramirez: -- atMercy Hospital. To address the member of the foundation, I was also a member of the foundation. When you walk into Mercy Hospital, you see my name in the main donors over there. I completely oppose this project. To begin with, I think that everybody agrees that we need first-rate medical facilities in the Mercy Hospital campus. However, by their own admission, the hospital has deteriorated to the point which they need $120 million in capital improvements just to update and modernize the building and equipment. If after operating for 20 years on donated land as a nonprofit institution they still have to resort to City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 selling a portion of the best land to some -- to fund some of the improvements, in my mind, and perhaps I'm being naive, it's obvious that the hospital has been grossly mismanaged by the Sisters of St. Joseph and the current administrators and the past administrators. This type of quick fix solution by Mercy going into the real estate business and becoming a land speculator further diminishes the image of the hospital and doesn't guarantee that they will not need additional funds in the near future. There is no guarantee to that. For them to proceed with the sale of the land to The Related Group, they need a change of zoning, which they extensively discussed here, and I'm not going to get into it. It's against the law at the present time. I think that the only moral high ground that Mercy can take will be to transfer ownership management to a more successful hospital network, such as Baptist Health, or some similar network, so the hospital can keep on working as it should as a successful first-rate hospital, which it's not at this time. It also exposes the remainder of the surrounding G/I property owned by Mercy and the Archdiocese to be up -zoned and developed into a high-rise luxury condominium corridor, such as the continuation from Brickell. Vice Chairman Sanchez: In conclusion. Mr. Ramirez: In conclusion, the Grove Bay Residence Project is totally out of proportion for Coconut Grove and should be denied, and I respectfully request the City Commissioners to vote against this project, or at the very least, to hold back any final decision until the Miami 21 -- which nobody has mentioned here -- plans are discussed and finalized, and to see whether this fits into the profile of the North Grove. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Doctor. Ma'am? Josie Romano Brown: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Josie Romano Brown, and I am the president ofMercy Hospital Foundation located at Mercy Hospital, 3663 South Miami Avenue. I have been the president ofMercy Foundation for over five years, and I am the one that raises funds for capital projects outreach programs for the underserved and equipment. I am here representing the employees ofMercy Hospital and the Foundation Board and its donors and contributors. Personally, I have been in the healthcare field for over 25 years, and I can attest to the excellence -- excellent medical care and compassion that is given to the patients atMercy Hospital, and that is why -- the reason is because we have a fine medical staff and a great team of employees. However, as has been mentioned before, our buildings are in dire need of upgrading. Fundraising alone cannot do it, and I understand what Dr. Ramirez says, but he should know that healthcare now is a very difficult business and is not a very profitable one, considering all the reimbursement, lack of reimbursements, malpractice insurance, and managed care, so I understand what he is saying, but I can tell you that I cannot raise the money needed to make all the capital improvements that need to be made atMercy Hospital, and what's important here is patient care. It is patients that we really care about. It is the patients in our community that we have served for over 55 years, and we will continue to serve with medical excellence, through our medical staff and through our employee staff and we're proud to do that, so I am here to ask you to please vote in favor of the project and help us continue the medical excellence that we have done for 55 years. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Romano Brown: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir? Edward Fidalgo: Sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the City Commission, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Edward Fidalgo. I'm the immediate past chairman of the Department of Obstetrics atMercy Hospital, and a member of the Medical Executive Committee and medical staff. Mercy Hospital has been providing maternity services since its opening 57 years ago. We City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 are the only hospital within the City limits ofMiami providing maternity care. Without Mercy, the women ofMiami would have to travel to another city for obstetrical care; that means going to South Miami, Kendall or worse, going up I-95 into North Miami Beach to Mt. Sinai. Mercy has done this with honor and great compassion. We need this project to go forward because without it our future is in jeopardy. Please don't let this be a blemish on the City ofMiami, a major city without a major maternity center. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, you are recognized for the record. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, butt need to call your attention that you need to be focused on competent substantial evidence relative to the land use issues. Any discussion, any presentation with regard to obstetric services, dollars, funding for improvement, medical care, treatment -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, I believe we're aware of that. Mr. Fernandez: All right, so, you know -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Attorney, but -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: -- on the first reading, you said that the Commission choose to discuss healthcare, and the discussion was about healthcare. Today, the discussion is about view, but on the first reading, the discussion was about only healthcare. In fact, members of the Commission warned the people that if they didn't support the project, maybe they couldn't get healthcare, so what made you change your mind on the second reading? Mr. Fernandez: Well, I don't know that I've changed my mind. I did not have the good fortune of being here during the first hearing. One of my colleagues sat with you, and I think that the record will reflect that she, on several occasions, tried to call your attention to that issue. It's like everything else. We can only admonish and try to call your attention to an issue, but if you, in the exercise of your largesse, allow testimony to be presented, then no harm done because you're allowing citizens to express themselves. When it comes time for you to make a decision, I entreat you not to consider anything other than competent substantial evidence adduced or testimony from experts relative to the land use decisions, and there was -- there has been plenty of that here today. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Can we ask, who's in line right now that's going to give us some more healthcare testimony? Chairman Gonzalez: You're not? Neil Schiller: I'm not. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Schiller: I believe it's my turn. My name's Neil Schiller, I'm an attorney at Becker Poliakoff, 3111 Stirling Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 954-985-4117. I'm here representing Bay Colony Condominium Association. I appeared before you at the last hearing, where I told you that, in early January, my client sent a letter to the Commission with concerns. After sending that letter, we have met with the developer and their attorneys and we no longer have any concerns. City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Mr. Schiller: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. John de Olazarra: Good evening, my name is John de Olazarra. I live at 1689 South Bayshore Lane, a resident ofMiami since birth. I am not being -- I'm not -- I'm a resident. I'm not being paid. I don't work for any of the developers. I don't work for Mercy Hospital. I'm speaking as a resident and nothing less. I would suggest that the Commission exhibit political courage here because I know that there is a tremendous amount of pressure that's coming down upon you in this decision. A decision of this magnitude, I would suggest, is inappropriately placed in your hands. I would suggest that perhaps the process would be better served if this was submitted as a referendum, or submitted to the electorate so that the electorate could decide as to a change in use, a change in our land use, in our zoning rules and regs of this consequence. I believe that to put it in your hands, it puts undue pressure on you, but this is our process and I hope that you would, you know, give it consideration. The -- your decision to approve this in the last reading, I think, was unfortunate. I think there was a lot of emotion that came into that decision, suggesting that we were going to lose a hospital, and a variety of other factors that I think were not germane, and I would encourage you to look at the zoning rules and regs that govern decisions like this and vote for denial of this request. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Good evening. George Suarez: Good evening. My name is Dr. George Suarez. I live at 2131 South Bayshore Drive, approximately five blocks from Vizcaya, and literally a stone's throw away from Mercy Hospital. As a disclaimer, I want to say that I do not practice at Mercy Hospital. I'm not going to make any healthcare comments, and have no secondary interest for being here, other than to express my opinion. I'm a neurologic oncologist. My practice is mostly at Baptist Hospital Systems. My home sits on about five acres of lush gardens rich with history, a home that once fronted Biscayne Bay before there was a Bayshore Drive. The property extends from 2131 South Bayshore Drive to 2132 Tigertail. It was the original home of John T. Peacock, also known as "Jolly Jack Peacock." Over the years, I restored the house to its original early 20th century grandeur. The house is registered as a historic home. It's been featured in multiple architectural magazines, both at the nation level, as well as Florida architecture. I choose to live in Coconut Grove for my appreciation of extraordinary history and architecture. It's truly an exquisite and eclectic blend of old and new buildings. The caretaking by the founders of Coconut Grove who designed signature buildings, such as my home, and established the tradition of lush landscaping and its views of Biscayne Bay is reflected in the project that comes before us today. I believe that this project represents a 21 st century version of Grove history, a project that brings public and water elements together, and a bay walk that will be accessible to the public with unique landscaping components that rival that of any city in the world. The Related Group's proposed project will continue in the tradition of excellence and design and sensitivity to its surrounding. It will be a project that Coconut Grove will be proud of in years to come. As far as Mercy Hospital, it will sell its land. It has to sell its land. It's the only way that they can keep up with the escalating cost of medical care, and they will sell it in the same way that Vizcaya sold its land to the Catholic Archdiocese years ago, without deed restrictions of any sort. I support the project and I hope this Commission will do so too, and oppose any other government or institutional project that would be a matter of right should this application fail approval. This project is a welcome addition to all of those who invested in the future of Coconut Grove in its value and expected caliber of design. It will only enrich our neighborhood and our history. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) before this Commission -- Commissioner Sarnoff And in conclusion? Mr. Suarez: Sorry? City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff Your time has been up for a while. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I apologize, in conclusion. Mr. Suarez: Thank you, sir. In conclusion, I appreciate the planting of the free line that's going to go on the south edge of Vizcaya. I look forward to enjoying the proposed bay walk in the same fashion that I enjoy the Gardens at Vizcaya, that I enjoy Peacock Park, and that I enjoy Kennedy Park, and I urge this Commission to vote in favor of the project. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Good evening. Sam Lapidus: Good evening, my name's Sam Lapidus. I live at 3 Grove Isle Drive, Apartment 1203, and I'm a resident and taxpayer, and unlike anyone else you've spoken -- you've heard from tonight, I represent the next generation of residents in Coconut Grove, and I will have to live with this project if it is built, and I have to look at this piece of property every single day. I live there 24/7, and in the five years that I've lived there, I have never seen a single person walk down that road. I've only seen cars. I've seen people park before, but I've never seen anybody sit and enjoy the view. It's not going to happen with a new piece of property. These monstrous buildings are going to look from far away as a demeaning view for people and they're not going to want to walk down there; they're not going to come down to enjoy, so any argument from the other side saying that this will be something for the public will not come to fruition. No one is going to walk down this view to watch it, and as far as I'm concerned, as a resident, this will affect my property value, and it will affect my neighbors on the backside of my building, and it will trickle down across the island. It will trickle through the neighborhood, and the entire neighborhood will be marked by the decision that you make tonight. On top of that, I've come to learn that the decision made a few years ago about the Grovenor has been sort of something that this Commission and previous Commissions has thought as being something to mark this decision by. I urge this Commission to not make another mistake and not set precedence in this City for future projects. I'd like to thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Good evening. Jihad Rashid: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jihad Rashid. I reside at 2983 Washington Street. I'm speaking on behalf of the Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association. I've worked in the Village West area for over 15 years. The Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association is supporting this project and it's urging your passage of this project for simple reasons. There is as hierarchy of needs and wants, and in a perfect world, we would not have to consider this, but as far as the citizens of Coconut Grove Village West, we're persuaded that Mercy Hospital has been a good neighbor, providing jobs and good services, and that by this project, they will be enabled to expand jobs and services and improve their facilities. We are also persuaded that the community groups in the immediate area supports this project, so in good spirit and empathy with the homeowners associations in the area, we lend our support to this project, and we urge your passage of it. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Good evening. Barbara Lange: My name is Barbara Lange. I live at 3495 Main Highway, in Coconut Grove, and I was a former guide at Vizcaya, and I guided children, and whenever they would come out in -- from the tea room into the garden, there was an amazing awe over them. It's -- along with the adult. It was just such a beautiful garden, and I'm here because I'm hoping that you'll vote no, that you will make sure that this view and this garden won't be destroyed by a condo. I'm also concerned about the protections that the Grovenor Ordinance awarded the citizens and the neighbors. We all thought that that was going to protect us against the intrusions of a developer City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 putting something like this on a property, and we don't -- I don't think that you should put -- give a special privilege to a developer in order to build this and ruin a national historic treasure. I also -- Commissioner Spence -Jones -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Lange: -- you've done a wonderful job of taking projects that were proposed in your area and making them better, and I'm hoping today that you'll either deny this or fry to make this project in a way that it won't hurt Vizcaya. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Good evening. Michael Smith: Good evening. My name's Michael Smith. I live at 1660 South Bayshore Court, Glencoe, which is less than one block from this project. I'm in favor of the project. I'm in favor of progress. Coconut Grove is a far better city today than it was 20 years ago when I moved here. Miami is a far better city than it was as a result of progress and development. The impact on traffic for this project will be less than comparable projects that could be built there without your approval, and I will see this project from my balcony, and I will deal with the traffic every day, and I am in favor of it for the reasons I just stated. I use Vizcaya. I also use Mercy Hospital, unfortunately, a lot more than I use Vizcaya, and I believe this project is very good for Mercy Hospital, and that's the main reason I'm in favor of it. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Commissioners, good evening, my name is Horacio Stuart Aguirre. I reside at 1910 Northwest 13 Street, Miami, Florida. I am trained as an MBA (Master of BusinessAdministration) in the School of Business, University ofMiami. I'm a commercial real estate professional in mortgage and brokerage. I am past president ofMiami Neighborhoods United, the current president of Durham Park Neighborhood Association, and I have been privileged to stand before you on behalf of the citizens of the City ofMiami on numerous occasions for the past four years. By reference, I'd like to incorporate my remarks that I presented to you here at this podium at the first presentation of this project, and I would also like to incorporate by reference the article in the editorial of the Miami Herald today, a public document. I have been asked by Diario de lasAmericas to come before you and read to you their editorial today on this topic. The editorial is titled "The Reckless Building Boom in the City ofMiami, " and before I do so, I would also like to add that zoning is not the appropriate vehicle for corporate welfare. I'll proceed with the editorial. "Any sensible individual who has a general idea about what a city should be finds that Miami's growth in recent years represents an alarming example of urban disorder in terms of building to the point that the natural beauty of the City ofMiami has been wasted, the quality of life has been damaged, the high towers with hundreds of thousands of condominiums obstruct the views to Biscayne Bay's natural beauty. Moreover, several hours during the day, sunlight barely reaches some streets and sidewalks where the condominium corridors are. It is difficult to understand how a master plan for the City ofMiami has been ignored, although it is known that one exists and has been systematically changed when certain interests set out to do so. In this case, today's master plan, or any other in the future, if exposed to these modifications determined by special interest, will suffer the same consequences from the change that are made with approval, and of course, the other municipalities that concur. In the City ofMiami, where so much of this has been done, the members of the City Commission modify zoning to make way for these huge tall buildings." Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will give you a copy of today's Diario de lasAmericas, the second-largest newspaper in the City ofMiami, with a circulation, since 1954, of about 130, 000. City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, I submit to you that Mr. Luft was incorrect, as I showed you in that documentl handed out. 907.3.2 has nothing to do with compatibility of scale; it has to do with the height setback. I hope that you would consider what you've read in plain English, in that ordinance, and that you would draw logical conclusions as to Mr. Luft's credibility. Secondly, please don't be misled by Mercy Hospital's pleas of poverty. There is nothing in your Code that asks you to consider the applicant's economic situation, and ask yourself how is it that every other hospital in the country that does not have surplus waterfront property for sale somehow manage to thrive and survive? Also, I did research into other land use change requests that were very similar to this one, in that they also involved up -zonings from R-3 to R-4. In many of those cases, the Planning Department recommended denial and gave as the rationale, "It is found that a land use change at this location may set a negative precedent and create a 'domino effect' in regards to future land use applications." Why would this same logic not apply in this case? As for the idea of putting up frees to screen the view of Vizcaya, remember, one good hurricane and those frees are gone. Lastly, I would ask that you do not make a hypocrisy of this Commission and the action that was taken with the Grovenor Ordinance. That Grovenor Ordinance was designed to specifically protect the public and the neighborhoods and the City, not just this location, but the entire City against exactly this sort of situation. Please uphold the Grovenor Ordinance. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ma'am? Grace Solares: Hello Commissioners, my name is Grace Solares. I am the vice president of Miami Roads Association and the president of the Miami Neighborhoods United. I, and other members of the Roads Association, who live in District 2, and in particular, the North Grove portion of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District, will be directly and adversely impacted by the project. In order for you to allow the proposed project to proceed, you must make a number of factual findings pursuant to the documentations that were given to you as supporting documents for this project, and I will address only three. First, before you can approve this project you must, in honesty and in good faith, find that the proposed project is not contrary to the established land use pattern. How could you make that finding of fact would be beyond comprehension. Commissioners, if you drive north of Bayshore Drive from the proposed project up to my home and that of my neighbors, which is only one block away from Vizcaya, one, there is nothing, absolutely nothing comparable to the proposed project, and nothing compares, or is comparable anywhere in this portion of the neighborhood conservation district, which is where this proposed project would be developed. You cannot make a finding that the proposed project is not contrary to the established land use pattern, because this project directly and squarely contradicts such patterns. Second, before you can approve this project, you must, in honesty and good faith, find that the proposed project is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood. Commissioners, this project is out of scale with the neighborhood, and so egregiously out of scale with the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District within which this proposed project will be built, that anyone can see it. It is grossly disproportionate to any other structure, and third and last, before you can approve this project, you must, in honesty and good faith, find that the proposed project is necessary due to changed or changing condition. There is no conditions affecting the property or people who live and work in this part of the city, that has either changed or is changing that requires or warrants this project. Chairman Gonzalez: Is that your conclusion? Ms. Solares: On the contrary -- this is my conclusion -- the density and the height of this project are not allowed, I repeat, are not allowed in this project. You proved it in March 24, 2005, so, therefore, we respectfully request that you reject this project. City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? Nina West: Yes. My name is Nina West, and I live at 3690 Avocado Avenue. I'm also requesting one of our -- the people who was sworn earlier has a presentation that has a lot to do with land use change, and the second one concerning the zoning. I'm only going to mention one thing on this, but I'd like to hand it in for the record, and it was written by the past president ofMiami Neighborhoods United, Mr. Hadley Williams. The last thing he mentions in Section 3 of the Zoning Classification, the questions that one asks, A through I. I says, "Will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner so as to compromise the protection of public welfare." Well, the public welfare is the City ofMiami. Public welfare also has to do with public realm. The City Commission has it in their hands, and they have spent enormous amount of time, enormous amounts of money to hire outside consultants, land planners, marketing, convention and visitors bureau, all to take Miami as a 21 st century first-class city, and if we cannot protect what draws the people in here, we are not stewards, good stewards of the City, and that means the whole city and every bit of and looking at it as a whole piece, one piece, so I ask you to take very seriously your responsibility to protect the entire city to have long-range planning, and ifMercy Hospital (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in ten years, I don't think that the money that they're going to get is going to last that much longer, and we won't have them either, so they can move, but Vizcaya will remain. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Good evening. Luis Herrera: Good evening. My name is Luis Herrera. I live at 1181 Southwest 22nd Terrace, president of the Vizcaya Homeowners Association, member of the MNU (Miami Neighborhoods United). Number one, Commissioner Jones [sic], in October 19, 206 [sic], when you said to the audience over here you don't want the people go out of town because you want people come into the town, with this type of project, we going to go out of town, because it's too high, it's not appropriate for the neighborhood, and I think we have our town. We don't have to move out of town. We need your help to deny this project because Mercy Hospital, they don't need that kind of money to be continue to work with it, because it's collecting a lot of money in any place around in the area that's the owner. I asking you because the Commissioners is the only one -- they can say yes or no, and we're asking you deny, the motion of the Commission coming pretty soon, and I asking all the people look at it and what do we got to do. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, my God. Yes, ma'am. Joyce Nelson: Joyce Nelson, 2535 Anagua Avenue, Coconut Grove, resident since 1974, and I guess, for about 20 years now, I've been frying to preserve the unique character of Coconut Grove, and a big proponent of responsible development. Of all the large projects that have gone into Coconut Grove, I guess I've been involved in all of them, except for Grove Isle. It's a little before my time, but I think if you took all these projects that we have fried to negotiate for responsible development, combined them into one, they would not be the size of this project alone. That is very, very large. I'm very, very concerned about the size of this project. I have been to every hospital here in South Florida, unfortunately, and I visited them all -- I have illnesses -- and I don't understand why Mercy Hospital is the only one that can't renovate. South Miami, Baptist Hospital, Doctor's Hospital, all have upgraded their facilities, and I really question why they can't. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Josefina Mobley: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Good evening. Ms. Mobley: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Josefina Mobley, and I City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 have been a volunteer guide at Vizcaya Museum and Gardens for the past eight years, and I would like to share with you my perspective on why Vizcaya is important to our diverse community. To do this I have to speak about our visitors. They are the residents of Dade County enjoying our Free Sundays in the Summer; the visitor from the cruise ship on a quick stopover; schoolchildren on a field frip; a group enjoying our moonlight garden tours; quinceaneras having their photos taken in the gardens; and, yes, a group ofviejitos, or senior citizens, participating through the Golden Ticket Program. I have had the privilege to meet them and introduce them to this wonderful resource. Why do they come to Vizcaya? They come to Vizcaya for the opportunity to see something different, something that has not changed in almost 100 years, a unique historical experience. Each of these visitors have come away with a sense of Miami's history and of the unique place that Vizcaya and its gardens hold, an experience that a city continues to grow and change is increasingly valuable and even precious. There is no other place like it. You have the opportunity this evening to consider the future of Vizcaya. I ask you to validate Vizcaya's importance to our community by rejecting this application and allowing Vizcaya to remain an irreplaceable, uncompromised resource to our diverse community. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Good evening. Carol Garvin: Carol Garvin, 1815 Tigertail. I'm opposed to this project. I'm going to tell you what it doesn't do. It doesn't promote future land use goals set forth in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; it doesn't revitalize declining areas of the City; it doesn't promote job opportunities or promote growth or development of downtown as a regional center of commerce, culture, or entertainment; it does not address affordable housing, and it doesn't protect and conserve the City's significant natural coastal resources. The residents of Coconut Grove in the City ofMiami are methodically being denied access to Biscayne Bay through the misuse of our bay front land. A building this size is totally out of scale in a residential area you call jewel of the City. As your cash cow, have you not heard of killing the goose that lays the golden egg? To demonstrate the heights, I've seen the balloon floating, I've seen the renderings of your proposed buildings, and the people from Related call these buildings, breezy, floating, and even transparent. Well, I've read The Emperor's New Clothes, and I know when a man stands before me naked, and I know three buildings 304, 365 and 411 feet high are not transparent. Thank you. Please deny this request. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Judy, second bite ate the apple. Ms. Sandoval: Judith Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. This time I stand before you as the cochairman [sic] of the Parks Committee ofMiami Neighborhoods United, and having listened to this long day of testimony, I really thought of something that would please everybody and make everybody happy, and even let the Commissioners off the hook for making a hard decision about this. There is one person here today who has not spoke who can settle the whole thing and do the right thing, and believe me, end up looking very good. That man is Jorge Perez, and I have never met Mr. Perez, but recently I saw his picture on the Forbes Magazine list of billionaires, and since Mr. Luft and Mercy Hospital have all been talking about money, there is a solution, and Mr. Perez could help a lot in this. Mr. Perez has become a billionaire with developing housing and building large and affordable housing in the City ofMiami, and he could do something for Mercy, he could do something for the City, and something for himself that I think would be more wonderful than building this condominium and selling them out to millionaires. Mr. Perez, I wonder if you might respond to this because it's just a suggestion, with all due respect, for everything you've accomplished here, but you could give the money to Mercy to do these renovations. You could take that land and put a park on it, and perhaps, name it after that lovely child that you had in here earlier -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Sandoval: -- and I think it would probably be more meaningful to you and your family, in the long run, than making a few more million on that condominium and having everybody in all these neighborhoods mad at you for the next five generations. Thank you. I hope you don't mind my saying this. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, prior to the next speaker, I think it's obvious that I don't need to repeat it, but the record needs to be very clear. We're building a record after all, aren't we? Individual's financial situations are not relevant to your decision today. You know, the public is beginning to abuse of the good graces of this Commission, and you know, they need to be focused on what is important for them and for you to deliberate in a few minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Spence -Jones: We know the difference. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Huh? Mr. Fernandez: I'm sure you do. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I said we know the difference. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. We know the difference. Dan O'Grady: My name is Dan O'Grady. I reside at 1660 South Bayshore Court, in the aforementioned Glencoe neighborhood. I'm a proponent of this project, and the contrary to what you may have heard earlier in testimony, I will walk my dog along the new bay walk. I have three selfish reasons for being proponent of this project. One is I would love to have a nice bay walk along the waterfront to enjoy Coconut Grove. I moved here from Fisher Island because I wanted to be a resident of the City ofMiami, very happy that I did. Secondly, in terms of the selfish reasons that I'm trying to impart to you here is, I would like to use Mercy Hospital as a medical facility. I know that's contrary to what the City Attorney wants me to say, but right now I will tell you that with the current facilities in the state that they are, my cardiologist would not send me to Mercy; he would send me to Mount Sinai, so I will tell you that, yes, there is a great need for the improvement of that facility, and I think this project gets that job done. Other than that, I would just say that I think it's important to the Grove to stay on a project basis here that is important to our future. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Next? Ron Nelson: Good evening. My name is Ron Nelson, 2535 Inagua Avenue in Coconut Grove. I appeared before you at your last hearing on this, first reading. I'm going to restate the same issues. I'm not here to speak on the project itself. I'm here to speak on the ordinance. I am the person who raised the funds and had the Grovenor Ordinance drafted and brought to the City. I will tell you that it was certainly not whatMr. Luft said. The intent was to prevent this type of thing from happening. Again, I'm not speaking on this project, I'm speaking for the ordinance itself. It is to be -- to protect the neighborhoods, and it was not whatMr. Luft said the intent was. Want to make that clear. Secondly, you have to remember that zoning is not project specific, so if this Commission were to vote in favor of this project, you have to remember that you have rezoned a large tract of land that this project does not have to be built on. It will be R-4, and anything R-4 can be built there. For whatever reason -- Mr. Perez is probably a very honorable man, but Mr. Perez could have a heart attack tomorrow, and this project not get built. City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 It would now be R-4, and anything can be built there. The economic circumstances can change, and this project not get built, anything R-4 can be built there, so if you are going to do this, you need to make sure that somehow this is project specific. You're here listening to this gorgeous project, but you're not making sure that this rezoning is project specific. I don't know how you're going to accomplish that, but you'd better do it if you vote for it. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Andres Gomez Mena: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Andres Gomez Mean. I reside at 3560 Vista Court. I also spoke in the first meeting that you had over this matter, but didn't think that needed to speak today. There seems a lot of the issue today is about the Vizcaya will be destroyed, and it's sort of funny because I'm sure when they built the Eiffel Tower in Paris they thought Paris would be destroyed. When they built the Centre Pompidou, that modern museum, just a few blocks from the Louvre, that's awful. Much worse, when they built that crystal pyramid in the center of the Louvre, abomination. All the cities that are great cities keep on moving and keep on changing and have great developments and great constructions built for them. To have -- to say that the Vizcaya will be destroyed just because another beautiful building is built down the road is completely destroying the fact that this City has been developed the way that it has, building itselffrom -- I'm sorry, what it was in 1959 to what it's today. It's a huge change, and I want to bring that in particular to the matter because of the lady that said something about Mr. Perez's wealth and what he should do with it. A lot of us here came to this country when somebody else told us what to do with our wealth and what we could not do with our wealth. I thought that kind of comment was completely out of place and disgusting, and the applause of the other -- the rest of the people was completely out of place and disgusting. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? Kate Terry: My name is Kate Terry. I reside at 1896 Tigertail Avenue. I'm a member of the North Grove Homeowners Association, we have 450 members. I am also on the Board of Directors, with Ron Nelson, of the Coconut Grove Civic Club, which was founded by Alice Wainwright. I'm here to just reiterate something very important. I understand this is about planning and zoning. You Commissioners have an awesome responsibility. I want you to look at the audience here. I want you to look out and see who is here. There are some incredibly influential and caring, educated people in this audience who are expecting you to do the right thing. The right thing for this City is to have appropriate progress and development. It has nothing to do with anything else that you've been hearing about; how Mr. Perez spends his money, or Mercy Hospital. We all know about Mercy Hospital; we all know what kind of problems they have and who they have to pay for the problems that they encountered. This is not about that. This is about the fact that when I bring people here and you bring people here, we are proud of our city, and when we go to Vizcaya or anywhere else. I have lived in Charlottesville, Virginia. I have lived at Monticello, down the road from it. Can you imagine, as Mr. Heisenbottle said, that something like this would be towering inappropriately, in the wrong place, too big, too massive, and an embarrassment to this City, so the people who have come here today are the people who know, who have studied, and who are here to teach us, and I want you to respect them so that they can say the Commission respected us and we understand what an awesome responsibility we're given by being Commissioners, and thank you, all of you, for serving. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next? JanetMcAliley: Hello, Commissioners. My name is JanetMcAliley. I live at 3 Grove Isle Drive, Apartment 807. I'm here to oppose this project. The gentleman who cited the Eiffel Tower and the Pompidou and the Louvre in Paris, those are beautiful projects, but they are public projects, and we are talking about a private project here which is excessive. The City of City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Miami does not need another set of towers that are excessive, not only in their size, but in their -- the cost to the potential purchasers. That is not what the City needs. We already have concerns; a recently published study on people who visited Miami and cited the terrible traffic situation that we have here. That is excessive, and this project, even though it may be second or third homes for millionaires, will add to the excessive traffic problems that we have on Bayshore Drive and in the surrounding streets and arteries around this project. Do not give in to people who are making excessive demands on this entire neighborhood. This project is way, way out of proportion to the neighborhood and to the needs of this City, so, I ask you, please, to vote against this project. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Next? Lottie Person: Chairman, my name is Lottie Person. I live at 3011 Plaza Street. I'm the first vice president of the Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association. I'm in support. I'm supporting Mercy Hospital project. We're supporting it because we need this hospital in our community. My mother -- I had to rush her to the hospital some time last year. I went home to try to get all of that information so you can know that I am telling the truth, and my mother, I brought her here, she spent a few days in Mercy Hospital, and when the doctor waited on her, I don't know what kind of instrument that were, but he said, "Oh, we have to be patient with the old technology that we have here." I just said, "Do the best you can." Now, our hospital, this is our community and we should do everything that we can to make this a better hospital in our community. We need to make sure that they have the best technology or whatever that this hospital need. Now, back in the day, this hospital were good to the people in Village West with the jobs, and that is important for our community. We just had a young -- well, not a young man now, somewhere in my age, just retired from Mercy Hospital as a cook. We went to school together, and you hired a lot of other people from Village West, and I know -- I'm hoping this will be the same when we get the best hospital in our community with the best doctors and everything. Now -- Commissioner Sarnoff Lottie, you need to conclude. Ms. Person: I am -- OK. Mercy Hospital with the funds -- you know, we all need affordable housing, God knows in Village West we need affordable housing. The money for the parks that we need -- Chairman Gonzalez: We need -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: In conclusion. Chairman Gonzalez: You need to conclude. Ms. Person: I'm a little Where because I went home and got my notes all mixed up -- Chairman Gonzalez: We understand. Ms. Person: -- because I was looking for that document so I could let you all know that what I was saying -- Chairman Gonzalez: We understand. Ms. Person: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir? City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 David Dohney: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is David Dohney. I live at 915 Alava Avenue, in Coral Gables, Florida. I come to you this evening as an old-time resident of the Greater Miami area, 25 years in Coconut Grove, a former general counsel for a major real estate developer in Miami and in the State of Florida, and a former general counsel of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, looking after historic buildings, like Vizcaya, nationwide. It seems to me, in listening to the most recent comments, that there's a lot of unnecessary emotion on the table before us. From my perspective, the issue is not whether there will be a development on this site; the question is, how large will the development be? What is the scale of the development? The issue is not whether Mercy Hospital should be able to sell their property and get some money. I think everybody agrees -- most people would agree that's a reasonable request. What I would urge upon the Commission is to look at the scale of the project, the height of the towers, and see if there isn't a way that the -- this responsible developer, Related Group, would do a very good job with -- I don't know how many units -- 300 units, 250 units, I can't speak to the height, but it seems to me the project should go forward at a much lower scale than what has been proposed. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Bruce Reep: My name is Bruce Reep. Much of my neighbors from Fairview Subdivision and the Grove Isle area are elderly; they could not stay longer. I have written permission for their two minutes, a total of seven of them, and myself. I'll try to make this quick and short. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Reep: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. You have your two minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: You have two minutes. Mr. Reep: So the people who signed papers offering me their two minutes, they're not entitled? Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: At 10 p.m., we're going to conclude the meeting. Mr. Reep: My thing will take about five, six minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: At 10 p.m., we're closing shop. Mr. Reep: All right. In that case, I'll just fry to hit some of the big bullet points then. One of the -- some of the things I didn't discuss last time in particular were that -- what this project does to both the helicopter pad. You all are not, as you've been told by the City Attorney, to consider -- even though it was great discussion from the City Commission to -- regarding Mercy's financial situation. When you change R-4, there's nothing in the criteria at all in the zoning saying that you're to -- that whatever the financial situation is. They had 50 years to do it. The other one is besides getting rid of the helicopter pad, I don't know how that is improving the place. The other one is that the road's being widened, and infrastructure that aren't being developed properly. We don't have water. We've been denied over a million gallons by Dade -County Water Management because of the State. Dade County isn't doing what they're supposed to do. I want to talk about Vizcaya; three of my six sisters were married there. I think of the Pope and Reagan being there. I know we have a lot of dignitary meetings there. You will not be able to stop Mercy and Lasalle from selling, and the Pacman or pizza approach that Mr. Sarnoff -- Commissioner Sarnoff said last month. You will not be able to stop them from selling those properties, and I'm going to let you know that one of the people who asked me to speak for him City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 said he was at a wedding, and he made a mistake, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and the vacuum cleaners were going, and I want you to think about how many boom boxes and salsa and rap can go from these balconies when these buildings start encroaching on Vizcaya. You won't be able to rent the place any more. Please don't do this to Vizcaya or our community. Thank you for the two minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am? Elsie Hamler: Good evening. My name is Elsie Hamler, and I work at 1730 Biscayne Boulevard, and I'm here tonight to speak in the support ofMercy Hospital being able to do this particular project, because I know, as a nonprofit, they could use the revenues that would be generated from such to restore the building. I know personally that there's a need for some repairs at that hospital, because my father was there prior to his dying and they gave us excellent service. They're a good staff of people and we really appreciated them, but in addition to that, Mercy offers jobs to this community, and has offered it for many years, and from my impression, when I was there, I was very impressed with the professional staff that was there. They also do Pell Grants in the inner city, and I'm aware of that, and they have a mentoring program, so they have done some very beautiful things in this community, and in particular, Igo back to jobs. Now, I don't know personally, but from what I've been able to assess is that the developer came to the table and lowered the project by 100 feet, and I don't know all these projects, but from what I've been able to assess, the Grovenor has like 36 stories, Grove Isle has approximately 22 stories, Grove Bay has 30 stories, so they're somewhere in the middle, and it looks like they have worked on the compatibility issue, but the last point want to make is that approximately 2.7 million goes to affordable housing, and we're all in this city looking for affordable housing solutions, so I am in support of trying to help Mercy Hospital sell this property, or whatever they're doing with it, and give them the revenue stream that they need as a nonprofit. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Marci Weber: Hi. My name is Marci Weber. I live on Swanson Avenue, in Coconut Grove, and I'm here to just to, first of all, say I feel for you guys because I know how hard it is to be in a situation like this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Weber: -- and it is really unfair. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Ms. Weber: It's unfair to have so much hanging in the balance. Chairman, that goes to you, too. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's going to the bathroom. He'll be right back. Ms. Weber: Should wait? Vice Chairman Sanchez: We have bladders too, you know. Ms. Weber: I could wait. I could hold it in for hours. Seriously, I'm all for Mercy Hospital. I love Mercy Hospital. Mercy Hospital took care of me, but the only heart attack I can tell you about is the heart attack my father had when he saw the size of these buildings in this beautiful little neighborhood I bought my house in. There are three things here. I'm all for progress. Progress means improvement, it means growth. There's compatibility. Compatibility means to get along with, and then there is harmony. Harmony is to be in tune. Now, there's no way -- and it's a beautiful project, it's just really out of scale next to Vizcaya and next to a predominantly City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 single-family home residences. It just doesn't make sense for where we are and where we live, and I speak to Mercy Hospital and I feel for them, and I would love to see affordable housing there, maybe we could have work force, that would be a novelty, on the waterfront, but -- however, with all due respect to Mr. Perez and his wonderful company -- because they have made a big difference in Miami -- I just think this is out of scale with the neighborhood and really needs to be addressed -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ms. Weber: -- and I'm sorry for you guys, but do the right thing. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's OK. Ms. Weber: We will remember this. If we remember nothing else, we'll remember this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. All right. Good evening, ma'am. Laura de Olazarra: Hi. Laura de Olazarra, 1689 South Bayshore Lane, and I'm here as a mother and just resident of the neighborhood. A gentleman a few moments ago, on the other side of the room, spoke -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Did you state your name? Ms. de Olazarra: I did. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. It's a long -- it's been a long night. Ms. de Olazarra: That's OK -- spoke to the appropriateness ofMercy selling land for development, and you know, made the allegation that probably no one would disagree with that - - with that use of the land, and I, actually, am here to disagree with that use of the land. It's currently zoned government and institutional, and it's waterfront property, and there are many fine things that the City ofMiami could do with this property that's zoned government and institutional, and I understand, you know, the amount of money that Mercy could make out of this project, but it's a -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: But you understand it's not our property, right? You understand it's not ours? Ms. de Olazarra: No, I do. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. de Olazarra: I understand, it's Mercy's property, but it's zoned government institutional and I think a rezoning to residential in any regard is just inappropriate. It's government and institutional land and waterfront. It's a very rare, precious commodity, and it should be preserved as that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. de Olazarra: Thanks. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? Barbara Schindler: Barbara Schindler, I live at Grove Isle. I'm on the board of directors at Grove Isle, and I will tell you that the vast majority of residents are against the project, but I City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 think you're all missing the point here tonight. This is not about Mercy Hospital. This is not about the view; this is about zoning. You zone, you change the zoning, you're going to open up a can of worms. I beg you, please, do not approve this project. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Felice Dubin: Good evening. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Good evening. Ms. Dubin: How are you? Vice Chairman Sanchez: How are you? Ms. Dubin: I'm only here to say that what we need at Mercy Hospital is a better medical center and an assisted living facility. We all need that. Miami needs that. Your disfrict needs it, your disfrict, and what they offered in their brochure was an assisted living facility and was a better medical center, so why not hold them to it? Why rezone something that doesn't need rezoning? Thank you. Ms. Thompson: We need a name for the record, please. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Felice, please. I thought -- God, it's getting -- I'm tired. Ms. Dubin: Felice Dubin, 2645 South Bayshore Drive. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Not everyone at once. Commissioner Sarnoff That's it? Harry Gottlieb: Good evening. I'm Harry Gottlieb, live at 3173 Shipping Avenue, Coconut Grove, and it's been the most interesting presentations since 2 o'clock. I think it has been riveting. We've heard a lot of issues brought up, of course, the view, and we heard about the health of -- the healthcare system, and about the hospital trying to guilt us into providing them with more subsidy than they already receive from our taxes, but, of course, the issue is the zoning, and we can't afford to change the zoning under any circumstance. You have to abide by the law, you have to keep the zoning. Commissioner Sarnoff you mentioned earlier today, you asked somebody if there was a -- if there were any other properties that were suitable for this project to be built on, and yes, there are quite a few properties that have already been zoned for a property like this that have been permitted for properties like this. I know, for example, a perfect example would be Onyx II, which is on 30th Street or 29th Street and Biscayne Bay. It's right on the water. Anybody can buy that property with or without the permits and build whatever they want. They can build a project very similar to this. They can sell the units for millions of dollars if they wish. That's what Onyx II was planning on doing, and that's what these people do. They have other choices. This is not the right choice, and Michelle, we love you. We know this is not your disfrict -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: You love me? Mr. Gottlieb: I love you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I read them blogs; you don't love me. Mr. Gottlieb: We know this is not your district, but please do the right thing and supportHr. Marc Sarnoff -- Commissioner Sarnoff on this. We'd appreciate it very much. You are the swing City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 vote, and we're counting on you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: How can you make the assumption that I'm the swing vote? Mr. Gottlieb: You are the swing vote; we all know that, and we want you to do what's right and vote against this project -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Gottlieb: -- and against the zoning. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Anyone else? Rafael Kapustin: Yes. Rafael Kapustin, 1581 Brickell Avenue. I'm also concerned about the zoning, and my concern about the zoning is that the existing zoning right now, which would not require any hearings, which could be the alternative, is what worries me. The alternative would be a building as tall as the one that has been planned. The alternative would be a building that would generate ten or fifteen times more traffic, because as I see it, if you have 300 apartments, and presumably, the apartments of this nature would be second homes, means that these apartments you may have, at a maximum, 40 or 50 residents at the same time, so that's 40 or 50 potential cars that might be coming in. The alternative on the present zoning, without any changes and without any hearing, could be a very tall medical building with hundreds of doctors, with tremendous amount of traffic and with exactly the same interruption in your view, so what I'm telling -- what I'm really saying is that it's -- leaving the zoning as it is, in my opinion, is really the problem for the view for the residents and for the traffic. It's changing the zoning that can give you a more favorable condition. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Jorge Lopez: Good evening. My name is Jorge Lopez. My family and I live at 1889 South Bayshore Drive, and we thank you, Commissioners, for this opportunity to come before you. In my particular instance, this is the third time that I've had the opportunity to share with you what a very nearby resident will be feeling by the impacts of this opportunity that I think comes to the City. Since the last time we were here, I think some very important things have happened. First and foremost, it's regrettable that we've come to a point where almost brothers against brother. I mean, these folks that are sitting here are my friends and colleagues on the Vizcaya Trust, and I cannot separate myself with the cause that they advocate for this evening, but I can say that I hope that the input that they've provided, as well as your professional evaluation, may give us a solution because I don't believe that this is to choose between Mercy Hospital or the development and Vizcaya. I believe that it's reaching a compromise and possible solutions between all of us that really brings us to where we need to be. I would also suggest that this Commission take into consideration the very important issues that are going to confront this community if, in fact, tax relief comes, as the State Legislature is promising, and I think most of us, as residents, do want. Once there is an impact into the ability of this community to generate the tax revenue necessary to keep the service level as the level they are, we are going to depend on individuals that are being targeted by these projects, which are second and third home buyers, to help us cover some of those expenses. It's my homestead, and we'll continue to do what we can to develop and grow in this community, but more importantly, I think projects like this are going to be very important for our community so we can grow and we can, in fact, identify those opportunities to mitigate the impacts that are there. Thank you very much and good night. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? All right, seeing none. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: Rebuttal. City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, I had several things to rebut, but probably the issue -- I'm sorry. Jorge Perez: My name is Jorge Perez. I live in Coconut Grove, and they're right, my young child was here today, and I have three other children that were born in Coconut Grove. This is a very difficult thing for me. I don't come typically to speak for my jobs; I think they speak for themselves. I have made a fortune here in Miami. I've been very lucky. I owe a lot to Miami. I owe a lot to this country. I would never put in front of the Commission a project that I felt damaged Miami or damaged a historic building. When I hear that this project is almost like taking, what was it, a tractor and knocking down Vizcaya, I get personally insulted. I feel for the people that are against it. I've met with Arva, and I've met with some of the people in the board and I have the highest respect for them. We just disagree. I don't think the project harms Vizcaya. When we looked at the views from the original building, and they said, "What do you think of that?" I said, '7 really don't have a problem with that." It has happened all over the world, and we have many examples to show you where it's happened. That is progress, and we're not adjacent to Vizcaya. It hurts me to pit members of the community against each other. It's a job that I'm sitting there and I said I wish I didn't have to do it, but I believe I'm an urbanist, I have always believed in the 24-hour city. I don't believe in the people that keep on saying, "Yes, you know, we need density, but not in my neighborhood we don't. Let's put it in Downtown; let's put it in Little Havana; let's put it in the places where the people are poorer and they're not going to fight us," and I think a lot of that is happening here. We sat and when we heard what everybody had to say, we tried to compromise and lower the buildings, as Bernardo will show you, to where we think that the view from the garden are de minimis. As a matter of fact, if we wouldn't have had Hurricane Andrew knocking down most of those trees in one area, you would hardly be able to see those buildings, so what I just want to say is, as an urban planner that cut my teeth in the City ofMiami, working in neighborhoods and heading the Community Development Department, you know, I sfrongly believe that this is the right thing for the area. It is not a matter of dollars and cents for us. You know, it is the right thing for Miami. Miami will have to grow, and we will have to put the people somewhere, so with all due respect, you know, this project is something that we feel very sfrongly about, that I would never put the Commission in such a difficult situation ifI didn't feel that it was the appropriate thing for Miami, the appropriate thing for the neighborhood, so thank you very much. Applause. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal, let's go. Ms. Dougherty: Instead of my rebuttal, what I'd really like to do -- because one of the things is this issue of scale and compromise, and I'd like Bernardo Fort -Brescia and -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: -- Steve Lefton to show you what we're proposing. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, again, everyone is, I believe, playing their own strings. This is not a court of law, but you need to have a system and a process. Rebuttal, Ms. Dougherty, is for the attorney to make arguments that go contrary to arguments made or evidence adduced by the other side. For her to introduce an expert again -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Mr. Fernandez: -- for that expert to explain something else, I think it would be inappropriate, and I think that the patience of this Commission has been fried. I would encourage you to ask Ms. Dougherty to make her arguments and not to introduce anyone else at this point in time. City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Ms. Dougherty: Mr. City Attorney, the rebuttal that we're talking about is factual rebuttal. We're not asking for any new testimony, but factual rebuttal to the issues that were raised by the Vizcayans. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, at that point in time, then you will have factual rebuttal from her three or four lawyer opponents not serving any useful purpose, in my opinion, but you're the sole determiner of that. Chairman Gonzalez: Just do the rebuttal yourself and exclude your witnesses. I don't want to open another case. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Forget it. Look, it has been eight hours of testimony. Come on. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, eight hours of testimony, and five hours -- Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, may we have -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- six hours, you're talking fourteen hours. Ms. Dougherty: -- three minutes of rebuttal -- of factual rebuttal, just rebuttal on the issues of the Vizcaya, and it will take no more than three minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: But you -- no. You should do it yourself. No. I'm not going to allow the witness to do it because then they can bring their witnesses back, and then we're going to be here until tomorrow, so, you know -- Mr. Lukacs: I object to any further evidence being entered. Ms. Dougherty: This is no additional evidence, simply rebuttal based on the facts that were raised by them. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does this pertain to -- Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the rebuttal pertains to testimony? Ms. Dougherty: Correct. It's a factual rebuttal only, but I'd like Mr. Bernardo Fort -Brescia to make it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, let's go. As long as it is rebuttal. Mr. Lukacs: Before the architect speaks, let's me just say this, that do object for the record, and for the first time tonight, this is one point that I'll agree with the City Attorney on. Mr. Fort -Brescia: I just want to set the record straight. First with respect to references to Mount Vernon and Monticello, those are rural buildings in the middle of the countryside in Virginia. This is an urban infill site. This is clearly an urban garden that is in our city, as the examples are shown in the many images that we have looking north, east, and this is an incorrect parallel, and in fact, which have many examples, including the Imperial Palace in Tokyo is in the middle of the city surrounding by buildings. That's a sacred building, and yet, there's a city around, and the Emperor ofJapan finds it acceptable. I think that is -- and he's still living there; he's not gone, and like these are many, many examples I have here, all the way from Montreal, to New York, to Singapore, the Istana Gardens are in the middle of the city. City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: But let's -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: I'd also like to point out, quickly, that we were -- there was a reference made to the Photoshop. This Photoshop is accurate. Our landscape architect selected the specimen and the tree. We positioned it in the survey. It was certified by a 3-D (three-dimensional) renderer, and actually, it is very, very close to the photograph in the Vizcaya book that shows precisely this tree line; in fact, perfectly horizontal all the way across, and you can see it in the page that was quoted to you earlier in the presentation. We propose to reduce the building by 100 feet. You can see, in fact, if any argument says that trees do not block, they do, because you can't see some of the buildings beyond, including some of the -- currently, some trees do block Lasalle High School, so they do have a function, and particularly in this case -- because I'd like to remind everybody that this property is a total of 2, 730 feet away from the Vizcaya villa. That is a very big distance. It's many, many blocks from -- of New York or any other city that is -- I don't know what is the magic number that makes a setback acceptable or not, but 2, 730 feet is a pretty ways away, many, many, many blocks in any -- by any standard anywhere, and there is a triangulation that exists, and in fact, if one does place the trees, as you can see here in the building at the hospital, you can clearly see that there is a line, and we picked that line, and that is a reduction we made. We made a reduction of nine stories to the tallest building, and that is a very significant reduction in a project of this magnitude. Commissioner Sarnoff All right, all right. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff Can we move -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff -- along now? Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Commissioner Sarnoff Are you done? Mr. Fernandez: -- that constitutes the rebuttal for the applicant -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Fernandez: -- and that should conclude the public input portion -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: -- of the public hearing. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Can you take down the pictures? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can we take those down? Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chairman, while they're taking down the pictures, I'd like to be able to address a couple of comments prior to making a motion. City ofMiami Page 141 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff Can I have that privilege? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir, of course. Commissioner Sarnoff First, to Coconut Grove and to our cousins in the Upper Eastside and to the rest ofMiami. It is an awesome responsibility, and I want to point out an honor to represent you in having been elected because most ofyou I find much more intelligent than me, and most of you I find just better civic -minded people sometimes than I find myself so it's an honor that you've allowed me to sit up here and do this for you. I was very disappointed at the last hearing that the City Attorney allowed us to go into so much depth about whether there was nuns, or hospital care, and healthcare, and the need for this, the need for that because the issue before us was a zoning issue, and the issue before us is the size of a building. One of the things I did do before knowing this project would come before me, I made sure that went out to Mercy Hospital during Christmas. I made sure that my entire staff went out to Mercy Hospital during Christmas; I made sure my wife joined us, and there we visited all the cancer patients and the heart patients who were not going to go home for Christmas, and I think we had one of the nicest times thatl could have. We met Dr. Anton, probably one of the nicest doctors I've ever met in my life, and I think he'll remember that day as well, but this isn't about Mercy Hospital, because I had my own personal circumstance to relate to Mercy Hospital. As I hear you talk, some people, about a community hospital, there was a circumstance once when I allowed my wife's and mine health insurance to lapse because I was a young lawyer and I couldn't afford to pay the health insurance, and sure enough, one of us had an accident and we had to go to Mercy Hospital. They gave us excellent care, but the community hospital did not reduce my bill because I didn't have insurance. The doctor did, but the community hospital did not, so I don't want to hear a great deal, and I don't want my Commissioners to consider about a community hospital when that has nothing, and I sfress nothing, to do with what we're here asked to do. I could bring up how all the hospitals do in South Florida, in terms of their financial ability. I could bring up that this is a 501(c) (3) corporation who hasn't paid nearly $200 million in taxes in the past 20 years. That's not appropriate, and for all ofyou who got up here and talked about healthcare, or for those of you that got up there and suggested to Mr. Perez that he front some money, that was just wrong, but today I've got to tell you, I'm proud to have represented you, because no matter how this comes out, you sat there like Grovites, some Upper Eastsiders. You presented your case with honor. You showed us a reason why it should be presented, and you should us a reason why it should not be presented. Now, to my Commissioners, I want to point something out to you very clearly. This is not a citywide issue. This is a District 2 matter. This pertains to Disfrict 2. It is not the Orange Bowl, and it's equally not the American Airlines Arena. It's equally not anything to do with the waterfront here in Coconut Grove, where every one ofyou have a right and a purpose and a point to bring your objective and subjective ways to bear. This is a Disfrict 2 issue. To Commissioner Gonzalez, you say it best, at the last commission hearing: "You are the district Commissioner. I always go by the district Commissioner. What you want to do, that's what I'm going to do," and I'm quoting you at 5:04 in the evening. To Commissioner Sanchez, I suggest to you that when you were looking at the Edgewater Tower that presented an FAR of 330,000 square feet, your remarks were: "If you look at what's happening in Edgewater and you see what's going on here, you have some narrow street leading into a lot of those projects, taking basically an opportunity to develop that area. What you're seeing is a lot of these homes. Look at it. If these homes would have been occupied --" and now you're referring to the building which was 40 stories "-- this is a monstrosity. You have a 41-story building overshadowing all these R-1 buildings, " so let me sfress to my colleagues that view this as a Disfrict 2 matter, and I hope you will consider the District 2 Commissioner's opinion on this. Now, as far as you've heard the testimony -- and wrote down everybody who I thought I would like to talk about. You could throw everybody out, everybody's testimony out except for one persons, Arva Moore Parks. Because if you listen to Arva Moore Parks, she captures the entire scope and privilege of what it is to live here in Coconut Grove. She captures how we have to be City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 stewards of our land, and we have to be careful stewards of our land. Now, we had a lot of people here testify, other than Arva Moore Parks. We had Jack Luft. Synopsis of Jack Luft -- and, by the way, Jack Luft was the planner for the City ofMiami from the mid '80's to the mid '90's, in case you don't like the way the City looks, take a look at what Jack Luft gave us, and where does Jack Luft live today? Nowhere in Miami; Marco Island. He's suggesting that the City has to be opened up to the ulfra rich, and that's something that serves a concern for the City ofMiami, and that's what we need to do, is open ourselves up to the ultra rich. Well, I'll tell you what, we have, to some degree. There are certainly 59 cranes in the sky right now. There is scheduled to be another 12 cranes in the sky, should they appear. I'll suggest to you that predominantly none of that is affordable housing. To Anne Adams from Bethesda, Maryland -- and it was interesting that we didn't know she was from Bethesda until she testified a second time. You know, being a trial lawyer, I have to use experts and when I have to go out of town to get my experts, there's usually a good reason why I have to go out of town, and she had to come in and tell us that when she went to Vizcaya -- and I was curious why she didn't know it a little better, butt was a less informed Commissioner up here than I should have been. She says she has no feeling of immersion that takes place when she goes into Vizcaya. Of course she doesn't; she's been there once or twice. How do you get immersed in that? I ask my Commissioners to look carefully at the City planners because now they're suggesting that this is an acceptable project, but I ask you to look at Condition 11(a), it's all in our packet, and what does it say there in Condition 11(a) ? It says, and I quote, "The project is out of scale with the area." Now, I've heard of talking out of both sides of your mouth to this City Administration, but you have accomplished that in the most important way I've ever seen. On 4/4/06, the project was completely out of scale. That's that memo that was shown to you. On 4/20/06, there was a pre -application meeting. Then suddenly on 5/25/06, or thereabouts, the project becomes acceptable with an R-4 designation. It will allow greater flexibility, yet they still maintain Condition 11 says, it's out of scale with the neighborhood. I guess that's so when they go home at night they can put their heads on their pillow. R-4 will allow greater flexibility. R-4 is the worst part of this project. It's not the project itself. Project itself could be amenable and could be acceptable if you just lowered its size, if you lowered its heights. The project's problem is putting an R-4 designation in Coconut Grove, because in five years, in four years, in three years, there is going to be another smart attorney from Greenberg, from any of the other law firms, and they're going to come in and they're going to say, "Out of scale? Out of scope? There is an R-4 in the Grove." Should Lasalle have to sell, should Mercy not be there, we'll have a new argument that we can hear the Jack Luft slice of pizza. Well, really the Grovenor Ordinance doesn't really say this. It says what I mean it to say, and I got to tell you, I listened to Jack Luft today, and you know what his opinion came down to on every issue I asked him about? It's my opinion because it's my opinion. No basis, no fact, no meat on that bone, it was a scantly -clad bone. "It's my opinion because it's my opinion." Well, I'll tell you what, to my Commissioners, there is an old saying up north in trial. They ask you to leave your coat at the door, but they don't ask you to leave your common sense at the door, so throw out all these great experts, and ask yourself from a common sense basis, do you want an R-4 designation in Coconut Grove? Do you want a project of a million square feet, an FAR of -- forgive me, I don't remember the FAR -- is that being a good steward of the land? Are you doing your job as Commissioners or are you just passing it along? We heard from a number of other people, and they're worth commenting on. Thaddeus Cohen. Do you realize that you had the former secretary of the Department of Community Affairs? That is the czar of the State of Florida come down and tell you that this project is out of scale for Coconut Grove. You didn't get somebody, you got the man. The man came down here and told you that this is out of scale with Coconut Grove. He's not a former anything. On January 7, 2007 he was the secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. Every major project had to go before him in the State of Florida. You have the County -- and I've got to tell you, I'm a little embarrassed about this -- coming in and telling you this project is out of scale. Let me tell you something about the City ofMiami. This is the most in -your -face democracy I can envision. I come from New York City. I never got to see one of my elected officials. You could come knocking on my door, Joe Sanchez's door, Angel Gonzalez's door, and you can see these people. Going to the County is a little bit of a different story, but the County City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 actually comes in and says this is out of scale. You even have the United States Department of Interior telling you this project is too big, so you have the County, a former state Secretary of Community Affairs, and the federal government telling you, "What are you doing down here?" And then you have a grant of $2, 000 by the federal government to help pay the legal fees. I wish -- I really wish for my community, and I suspect Commissioner Spence -Jones does for her community, that grants were a little easier to come by for us for some affordable housing projects, but they actually gave them a grant for this to come down here. You know, I'm going to just name the people who I think you should pay attention to. Your collective memories are your collective memories. You had a Hector or Hunter Iler; you had a Jay Williams, a Zoraida (phonetic) Mason (phonetic), those were the County planners; Joel Hoffman, a Richard Heisenbottle, a Max Blumberg; you had who I think is the only person that you need to listen to, Arva Moore Parks. You know, I was elected in November. This was a hot contentious issue back then, and when you walk a community and you see everybody face-to-face, you really get to learn them, and you really get to know what's important to people once you go through the process, and that's why I'm proud to be sitting here, because I had to earn the right to come here. I had to earn the right to sit here, and I will tell you this. My first 110 days in office have probably been -- other than being married to my wife -- the happiest 110 days I've ever had. I'm exhausted, I'm tired, butt go home feeling like I did something. I feel like I served my community, and I ask you, before you do anything today, to consider that the Commissioner of this district did all the things necessary to meet his community, to take his community's concerns to bare, and is giving you what he believes is important facts concerning how he feels about this community and the project. This project could work. There's two things that would have to change about this project;; the size and the R-4 designation, and neither one of those are negotiable. The size is too big, the R-4 is a designation Coconut Grove can never live with, and then I'm going to ask the City Attorney to close up whatever loophole exists, should there be one, so that when we ever take any part of any G/I property, I don't care if it's a square foot, and I don't care if it's a square mile, that that property must revert to the lowest or the smallest -- I'm not good with these land use terms -- but it's the least restrictive -- what am I saying? Least what? Unidentified Speaker: Intensive. Commissioner Sarnoff Least intensive -- I love those words -- least intensive use of land that you can find to the adjacent area, and I know that was the intent of the Grovenor. I was there for the Grovenor; I got to see the Grovenor, and I probably have said enough, and now I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion to deny the application. I find that the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan would, one, act to harm the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood; two, foster a decline in the surrounding neighborhood; three, promote a negative impact and it would reduce job opportunities; four, this application would hurt our ability to foster downtown as a regional center; five, this application would foster land use conflicts; and six, this application would harm our significant natural and coastal resources. Do I have a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. Discussion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion. I was hoping that harmony would find compatibility, but I don't think so, so on the issue -- Well, let's put it on the vote. Let's see how it goes. Chairman Gonzalez: Madam City Clerk, will you do a roll call, please? Mr. Fernandez: Well, it's an ordinance, and you need to have the ordinance read. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Will you read the ordinance then? City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: This is to deny. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: No. Ms. Thompson: That motion fails, 3/2. Mr. Fernandez: So now it would be appropriate to make a motion on the reverse, and having already read the ordinance, then the vote needs to be taken on the opposite. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We've had nine hours, just about, of testimony. Nine expert witnesses, four attorneys, and a stack of documents to review. We must base this on substantial evidence that's here in front of us today. I want to give both sides due process. I want to be able to -- I've been here eight years, and I have never seen the amount of people that have shown up for and against this item, and the presentations that have been made on testimony in front of us today. I think what I want to do is table the item, put it back on the PZ, the first item, and then we'll vote on the issue. That gives us plenty of time -- Commissioner Regalado: That's very unfair, Mr. Vice Chairman. That's very unfair. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why would it be unfair? Commissioner Regalado: These people have been here -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, wait. I have the floor, and I have not yield. I think it's unfair if we make this decision, based on all the documents that have been presented -- City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: I mean, you made the motion the first time. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, I have the floor, I have the floor. Commissioner Regalado: No. I understand that, but please -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I have the floor -- Commissioner Regalado: -- don't do this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and I have not yield to you. I have not yield. Out of respect, I think that all fairness is that we have an opportunity, and there is valid arguments on this -- Based on substantial evidence of the expert witnesses, I feel that once I'm able to make an intelligent determination, I could come back and probably support you on the case, but to make this decision right now -- judges go through "X" amount of witnesses, "X" amount of testimony, and you want me to make a decision in five minutes? In five minutes, thumbs up or thumbs down? Commissioner Sarnoff Folks, folks, folks. It will probably serve your interest not to get into this. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Listen, if you would like me to vote now, I will vote now, but you will not like my vote, so I suggest that, out of respect, I think that you owe us an opportunity to review all the documents, listen to the arguments made by all the attorneys, and then come back and make -- if you want let's take half an hour, let's sit down; let me read some of the documents, I'll come back and vote in half an hour, but I'm not going to make that decision in five minutes. I don't think it's fair for both sides, and it's a very -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chair -- I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Excuse me. -- it is a very sensitive issue, it is a very controversial issue. I would love to bring forth a solution and maybe ask that, yes, we do have a problem with the size. Maybe there could be made -- some recommendations as to coming to a compromise based on the size that Vizcaya may not be -- it may not have the building blockage, and they could come out with maybe reducing, maybe they would proffer a reduction, further reduction, maybe a 20 percent, 30 percent reduction, but in five minutes asking me, out of all the testimony that has been made here, to make my decision, I think it's unfair. I mean, I've been here for eight years and I've never had to do this, not nine hours of testimony, not all these attorneys, not these so-called experts, and I'll take all these experts into consideration. Commissioner Sarnoff And for whatever it's worth, Commissioner Sanchez, you're right. A judge would not rule directly on the bench -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Of course not. Commissioner Sarnoff -- so -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I just make a comment, please? Mr. Fernandez: If you're discussing a motion to defer, there needs to be a second to that motion. Commissioner Sarnoff I'll second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. Commissioner Spence -Jones: But before we make a motion, I just -- City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Before -- yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I do have a comment. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What would proffer, or I would suggest -- and it's up to my colleagues -- that we have an opportunity to review all the documents, OK. It will be on the PZ item, at the next PZ, first item on the agenda, right off the bat, we vote on the issue, up or down, or if you want to make -- you know, give it another vote, we'll try it, but think, in all fairness -- you know, listen, it's hard for us to please everybody out there, but do you think it's fair for me to make a decision whether it's one way or the other based on five minutes with so much testimony that was put on the record? We've had two court reporters that haven't stopped all day. They go on and off because they're tired. I mean, it's -- I think it's -- for me to make an intelligent decision, I think owe it to you, both sides, to read all the documents on substantial evidence. I guarantee there's 90 percent of the stuff here that I'm not interested in, but what's substantial evidence to this case, I think I'm entitled to review it and then come back, and if it's voted down, it's voted down. If it's voted up, it's voted up. If there's a compromise -- maybe there will be a compromise between the developer and some of the reasonable people that are out there, maybe there is. I don't know, butt want to afford everyone that opportunity before I just -- we vote it down. That's just my opinion. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: If you don't want to go along with the deferral, then vote it down. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Spence -Jones, you're recognized. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Let me say this, and this is to my Commissioner, Commissioner Sarnoff because, you know, I firmly believe in supporting Commissioners in their disfrict, and I truly appreciate every time that you support me in everything that I'm frying to do in my district. One of the things that for me, you know, after -- usually, when we have big votes like this, normally each one of the Commissioners has the opportunity to speak on the issue, and before I even had the opportunity to do that, you had already basically made your statement without allowing for -- I can't speak for the other Commissioners, but at least for me to express my viewpoint, and I would not want to be judged based upon me making a vote off of something like this without at least being able to express, to the public -- while it is your district, I still think that all of our votes count in this situation, so I think it's important to hear why we would even come up with this conclusion now, so that was the reason for my vote, OK? Second of all, as Commissioner Sanchez proffered this other option, you know, I'm always frying to find compromise, even in my district, where everyone is frying to build and develop, it's become the next frontier as far as building and development is concerned, and every time someone steps from a major development standpoint to want to do something in my district, I'm always frying to find a balance between the neighbors and the developers in order to get something done within my disfrict, so -- and it has worked for me from the standpoint -- I'm going to be honest with you. Probably 90 percent of the projects that I've asked for the individuals to come back -- to leave, come back together and come up with something, it has worked in my disfrict. Now, clearly Coconut Grove is a different community altogether. I mean, I cannot even begin to compare my community to your community; it's just not the same, butt would have liked to been afforded the opportunity to at least express -- I had at least five things that had questions, or I, at least, wanted to be able to debate or have some sort of you know, discussion with you about, and I wouldn't want to be judged based upon my making a vote on this without being able to express those, so I don't know if you want -- since Commissioner has already, you know, said -- proffered, you know, to come back at the Planning and Zoning meeting, the next one, and let this be the first item, I can wait till then, butl do have at least five clear things that stood out to me in this proposal that thought, at the end of the day, people elected me in my district, my City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 constituents for certain reasons, so you know, I'm looking at these items and these are items clearly that reflect them, so -- but again, I -- you know, I support you whatever you're frying to do, so I'm not -- would never want to go against you, but that was the reason why. You didn't give us the opportunity to speak. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And let me just put something on the record, Mr. Chair, ifI may. I would urge the developer to scale back on the project, and I'm hoping that they would reach a compromise with -- it's going to be impossible to reach a compromise with everyone, but I'm hoping that it would be downscaled, and I looked at the building, and the one thing thatl don't like -- I would love to see a transition, not just have all three of them the same size, if you could work that out, so that would be what would put forth -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- as I make a motion to defer and they could come back. Chairman Gonzalez: -- we need to be honest with ourselves. I mean, you know, I heard arguments here that the developer needs to downsize the project by 50 percent. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no. Chairman Gonzalez: The developer will never do that. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: I can tell you right now, he will -- they will never do that. They will never scale down the project by 50 percent. That's, you know -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, if we're going to -- I just want to be clear. If we're going to start talking about all the different issues around it -- Chairman Gonzalez: But listen -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- I would like to be able to have the opportunity to at least discuss that and have a debate on the issue, or at least a discussion on the issue. I mean, that's - Chairman Gonzalez: That's between them and them, you know. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Just a brief comment. I feel like we had a long presidential campaign, this is the third debate, and we have deferred the election for next year. I don't know what else -- Applause. Commissioner Regalado: Look, I don't know what else is to be said here. The people that stood over there said what they proposed is nonnegotiable, we don't want that. For the first time in many times, I have seen the developer come up and very passionate say that he will not do anything to harm the City, and that we have to see what he presented as something that would not damage the City, so if we translate that, it means that the developer who, by the way, became a millionaire because he knows what he's doing, will not reduce in half, or will not reduce in tenth, what the final product -- is the final product. In the middle of that, it's an irony because I City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 think it was last week that was reading in the paper about Miami 21 and the Mayor saying that -- and us, the Commissioners, and people saying that the Zoning and the Planning of the City of Miami in the past was a disaster, and that Miami 21 was trying to fix those decades of horrible zoning, and yet all the debate has been, "What can we do now with the existing Code? And what is the Code? What does the Code allow?" And this is the Code we want to change, and we want to change it soon. Actually, in District 2, it's like around the corner. They called me crazy when I said a long time ago, let's do a moratorium until we have Miami 21, you know -- Applause. Commissioner Regalado: -- but don't understand why we are waiting. I don't understand what else we have to study. It is -- this is really in -your -face democracy because, you know, to be here -- I mean, I got here at 1: 45 and this hall was full, so I figured that most of these people got here around 1: 00 or 12: 30 in order to take seats. They haven't even gone to have dinner or a break. At least have a slice of pizza courtesy ofMichelle, butt mean, next time 10: 00 a.m., will people be able to miss work again all day? Vice Chairman Sanchez: There will be no testimony; it'll just be a vote. Chairman Gonzalez: There will be no testimony. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We would vote on the issue. Commissioner Regalado: Well, then -- I mean, I -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Regalado: -- will do what the Commission decides. I mean, 90 percent of the time I get outvoted, so it's no problem, but you know, for me, I feel better to making a decision with a full City Hall than with an empty one. Applause. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, let me just say this, since -- Commissioner Regalado: But you know -- Commissioner Sarnoff -- I'm the district 2 Commissioner -- and by the way, if you weren't at the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) the other day, I think had the highest compliments in the world to say to my colleague, Commissioner Regalado, who I learn from every day, but think on this issue, I hope he'd respect me on this, I have a strong feeling how the left side of my table is going to go, and I think we do everything we can possibly do to let the others think about it, let them ponder it, and truthfully, Commissioner Sanchez is right. I don't know a judge that would sit all day hearing testimony that would rule from the bench. That happened about 20 years ago, it doesn't really happen any longer. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: What is being considered certainly can be done, but my concern, and you've heard a lot of lawyers, several of them, come up to you and pinpoint issues of irregularities, conflicts of interest, violations ofJennings, and so the tenor of the hearing today should have sent a very strong message to you that there are attorneys that are scrutinizing every single issue that you do, and there is nothing wrong with that, because you are all transparent and very City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 clear, so the rules that need to be observed, if you in fact consider a continuance, is that -- and together with your continuance, Commissioner Sanchez, you made reference to your hopes that people could meet. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Listen, that has happened in the past and maybe with more time -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- but the only way -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm not suggesting that. That's up to maybe the community and the developer -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Vizcaya. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and that's happened in the past. I'm not suggesting anything. Mr. Fernandez: So then, if you continue the hearing to April 26 for you to take a vote, but then a member of the public stands up and says, "Point of order. We've talked with the developer and the developer has talked to us, " now keep in mind there is at least four or five factions here that were represented today, so are you then going to open the public hearing April 26? Commissioner Spence -Jones: No, we're just going to vote. I just thought we would vote. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Fernandez: So you're I want to make sure the record is clear that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- Mr. Fernandez: -- you're continuing only for a vote. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- only for a vote; OK? I think I've made the argument already, OK? The issue here is, we've had respectable people that have testified, you had witnesses that have been flown out of town that have testified. There has been numerous testimony that has been put on the record. I think it's paramount, I think that out of respect for the due process that exists -- and I know whatever is going to happen, it's going to end up in front of a three panel judge [sic], as it does, but this is a -- one of the most serious votes that we're going to take here because I think that, first of all, Vizcaya is very concerned, and I'm very concerned, and I certainly don't want to be the Commissioner who would be remembered in this Commission as someone who has scarred Vizcaya. I don't want to do that, OK, butl also think that something in that property is going to be developed, and I just think that if we afford an opportunity to maybe downscale the project, and we have a win -win situation where 50 percent of the people or 60 percent of the people may be in favor of this item. Based on our decisions, we'll move forward, but think we might deny people the opportunity. Mr. Fernandez: So the appropriate motion that hear you making is continue it to a date certain and remain the public portion input -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Only ifI -- Mr. Fernandez: -- open. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- get from the applicant -- where's the applicant and the developer? Mr. Fernandez: Well, but you know, you cannot -- once you have a public hearing and you open it to the applicant, it is my opinion that you must -- City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- open it to everyone else that has anything to say in this issue, otherwise you're opening yourself -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- up to a lot of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- Mr. Fernandez: -- indefensible legal argument. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, I take your advice -- your advisement, you know, but -- Mr. Fernandez: So open it so that everybody could come again April 26 and we can hear another set, another -- maybe this time we may only be four or five hours. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. OK -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Listen, make the motion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: So you have a motion, right? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: You made a motion? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah -- you guys can make the motion. Once we make the motion, I do want to put something on the record, but go head [sic] and let's make the motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm proffering, once again, that we bring it just back for a vote, giving us opportunity to digest all this evidence, find out the substantial evidence, and make the decision on the issues that affect this case, the merits of this case. Mr. Fernandez: So you're subtracting from your earlier statement the fact that you don't expect the developer to meet with the neighbors and fry to reach an agreement? Because those two are mutually inconsistent. You cannot say that you're coming back April 26 just to take a vote, but then on the outside chance that they have all met and reached an agreement, that then you would allow some to speak and others not? That to me would be indefensible in court, and it's not the proper procedure that I would advise you on. You may choose to move the meeting, or continue the meeting, as a plenary session open to the public, and the public again would have the opportunity to speak on issues. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, but I think we need to be very careful with that too. I mean, do we put ourselves in another nine -hour -- Mr. Fernandez: With the audience you have in front of you, yes, you will. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, you will. City ofMiami Page 151 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, we will? Well, I don't want to do that, but also don't want to -- you know, I don't want to cut this short where I think that there may be some compromises here, folks. I mean, there may be some compromises here. Instead of just voting this down, there may be some compromises. Vizcaya may save the view. The developer may go we're going to reduce it instead of 10 percent, 30 percent, or whatever, and we could continue forward, instead of denying it now and then you have an area that -- I'm all for, you know, the R-4; you think it's a problem. We could debate that later on, butl could tell you this much, the area in itself what they could build there, you got to -- you know, careful what you wish for, or careful what you ask for, so those are the things that think that we should maintain the avenues open where I think that, at the end of the day, some people may be winners and some are going to be losers. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Commissioner -- Mr. Fernandez: So, again, it's a motion to continue the full public hearing? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but listen, we can -- Come on, counsel. We've got to be fair here, OK? We don't want everybody to come back and testify, put the same thing back on the record. I mean -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you. Your original motion was to come back after you read all your documents and analyze all the testimony, and just vote on the item -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Whatever they do outside, they do. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and that's the way that it's going to need to be, because we're going to have a Planning and Zoning agenda to deal with, plus we're going to have another eight hours of testimony on this issue -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I think the message should be -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- plus the agenda? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to the developer that he needs to downscale that project. Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So, we -- you're going to -- Marc, you're going to --? Commissioner Sarnoff I'm going to second the motion. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. So that we bring it back? Chairman Gonzalez: So what is the motion? Commissioner Sarnoff Motion -- Chairman Gonzalez: The motion is to come back on the 20 what --? Mr. Fernandez: 26th. Commissioner Spence -Jones: April 26. Chairman Gonzalez: The 26th, just to vote on the item? City ofMiami Page 152 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff Correct. Not a -- Hr. Fernandez: No. Commissioner Sarnoff -- public -- Hr. Fernandez: That's not Commissioner Sanchez's motion. Commissioner Sanchez's motion is to come back and hear from affected parties -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Limited discussion, limited discussion. Hr. Fernandez: But, sir, I -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well, that needs to be clear. We need to clear that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel, are you OK with that? Unidentified Speaker: No. Hr. Fernandez: No. Commissioner Regalado: Well, how do you limit the discussion? How do you limit the public debate? Chairman Gonzalez: How do you limit discussion? Commissioner Sarnoff Why can't they? Why can't they just --? I mean, I've heard everybody say two minutes, now we say you have ten minutes to present your case, ten minutes, and then we vote. Commissioner Spence -Jones: That's right. Commissioner Sarnoff I mean, if something comes up in those ten minutes that you want to hear, fine. If they say -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: If something has changed. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, Commissioner, but ten minutes to whom? Commissioner Sarnoff Both sides, and we have twenty minutes, and then we vote, period, so we'll -- this thing should be concluded in a half an hour. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but, remember that, on this side, there are four or five or six or seven sides. Commissioner Spence -Jones: It's four -- no. It's only four on this side, right? Hr. Fernandez: No, no, no, no, no. Chairman Gonzalez: There it's only one side -- Hr. Fernandez: You cannot -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- here you have seven sides. City ofMiami Page 153 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff But are you --? Mr. Fernandez: And if someone that did not show up today chooses to show up on April -- Commissioner Sarnoff But that's -- Mr. Fernandez: -- 26 -- Chairman Gonzalez: They have to be -- Mr. Fernandez: -- with a different angle, my opinion would be that that person would be entitled to speak -- Chairman Gonzalez: To speak. Mr. Fernandez: -- because it's a continued public hearing. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Lukacs: Commissioners, may I -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right on. Mr. Lukacs: -- speak? Again, most respectfully, everyone is struggling, all of you Commissioners right now with a very difficult decision. As public servants, you are here working hard for us. I can envision us having a continuance of this hearing -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I want to make the most intelligent decision based on the facts. Mr. Lukacs: I understand that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're a counsel. When was the last time that you gave nine hours of testimony and you had a judge rule in less than five minutes? Mr. Lukacs: Well, actually, I had a nine -hour discussion with my wife yesterday and she ruled immediately. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And she won, right? And she won, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's not fair. Mr. Lukacs: Let me say this. With due respect for the CityAttorney's opinions, if you feel that this is such a substantial issue that needs to be addressed, a complex issue that you need to deliberate it further, my suggestion would be, so that the due process is protected for all concerned, on this side of the table as well as that side of the table, that your motion, Commissioner, be a motion to continue, it be seconded, and we move on to the next hearing. The discussions will not be repetitive. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Mr. Lukacs: They will be specific discussions in response to specific issues. We, as attorneys, as advocates, are really under an obligation to provide you with the law and the facts and the advocacies for our clients that you can make informed decisions. That's all I want, is an informed decision. I may not be -- City ofMiami Page 154 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: And they're here. Mr. Lukacs: -- happy with it -- I may not be happy with your decision, but there's another forum for us -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Somebody's not going to be happy with my decision. Mr. Lukacs: -- there is another forum for us down the road. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, there -- at last count, there were 18 lawyers in this room. The only lawyer that should matter to you giving you legal direction and advice, at this time, I would like to think it's me. You may do what you want to do, but you need to be very clear that it is a continuation of the public hearing with a right of the public to give input, whether it's a negotiated settlement, whether they continue to disagree, whether a new person comes up with a different theory, that's the kind of meeting that the motion that's been seconded contemplates. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That is my motion. Commissioner Sarnoff I'll second it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, may I? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. City Attorney, in the past what you have done is you have continued these items in order to allow the applicant to meet with the other side to see if there was a compromise. At the time that the next hearing occurred, you asked for a report from the applicant and the other side to see if there is a compromise. Chairman Gonzalez: That should be the motion. Ms. Dougherty: And if there is no compromise -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, that's what we've done in my district. Chairman Gonzalez: Allow yourself some time to read all the documents, and allow some time to read everything, to get our thoughts together, and at the same time, allow us some time to get together and either come up with an agreement or continue to disagree. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I will rule the next -- Mr. Lukacs: Frankly, I like -- Chairman Gonzalez: And then when they come back, you know -- Mr. Lukacs: -- Commissioner Sanchez's motion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would -- listen, I will rule next time, all right? So that's the motion that's on the floor, the one that proffered. Ms. Lewis: The Vizcayans are fine with continuing the hearing and attempting to work with City ofMiami Page 155 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Related, and we'll come back on the 26th and tell you what we've done, and also have the opportunity to present evidence. Chairman Gonzalez: Once we get a report from this side and a reportfrom this side -- Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me. An opportunity to -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- then we vote on it. Ms. Dougherty: -- present evidence is not what was contemplated. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no, no evidence presented. Ms. Lewis: In a public hearing, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: No. That's -- I mean, this was -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no. Ms. Dougherty: This was simply a report on -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No evidence. Ms. Dougherty: -- at least, the way you have done it in the past, you've Vice Chairman Sanchez: No evidence. Ms. Dougherty: -- reported on your negotiations with -- Ms. Lewis: Well, but the motion by Commissioner Sanchez, which I believe has been seconded, was to continue the public hearing and to allow -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let me amend the motion. Ms. Lewis: -- there to be the debate. Commissioner Sarnoff Let me amend the motion. Chairman Gonzalez: Amend the motion. Commissioner Sarnoff The amended motion will now be, for my amendment, that it will be a report, there will be no public hearing on the matter, and we'll just vote. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No evidence presented. Commissioner Sarnoff Correct, it will only be a report. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No evidence presented. Commissioner Sarnoff That's right, that's right, so do I have a second for my amended motion? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's my motion. City ofMiami Page 156 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Can -- are we --? Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion, and we have a second -- Commissioner Sarnoff All in favor. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to come back on the 26th, just with a report and a vote following the report. All in favor, say "aye." Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, please, a point of privilege. I have just been approached by some of my distinguished colleagues saying, "Who's going to represent? Who's going to talk? What's going to happen? What do you mean no evidence?" And that is less than a second after you all thought you had a motion going. Chairman Gonzalez: You see? Mr. Fernandez: We are asking for trouble. My opinion to you, on the 26th ofApril, is that you need to have a full, complete hearing. If you decide -- yes, it will. You know, I cannot become a little bit pregnant and allow -- and just because it's happened in the past -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I withdraw my motion. Commissioner Regalado: I told you so. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, if the other side is willing, we could postpone this hearing for half an hour and meet with them. Commissioner Regalado: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, half an hour, we'll come back and vote on this issue. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. You got it. Half an hour, recess, half an hour, and we're going to make a decision tonight. [Later... Chairman Gonzalez: (INAUDIBLE) reconvene this meeting, and see if we can come to an agreement. All right. We took a recess with the intention of seeing if both parties would come to an agreement and a resolution of this item. What do you have to report, counsel? Mr. Perez? Mr. Perez: Hi. My name is Jorge Perez again. We went outside. We had to first go to Mercy, of course, they own the land, and we asked them to participate with us on a 20 percent reduction of the building magnitude. Instead of 300 units we would have 240 units, and the floors will go also down. Again, I think it's two more floors from the previous presentation that we gave. We have proffered that to them. We really are at -- this is difficult for us and for Mercy. It has to be -- it will be subject to Mercy's board approval. If we don't, we would have to come then back to you, but that's what we can do. Mr. Lukacs: I represent a board of directors that makes decisions for Grove Isle, all 515 residents there. It's a start. I think that, Commissioner Sanchez, your motion was to defer this for a period of 30 days and report. Commissioners Sarnoff, I believe you seconded that. I'm going to need additional time to take that proposal, the initial proposal, back to my clients for their consideration. Much like you need time to make an informed decision and to consider the evidence that has been provided to you this evening, I too cannot make a decision for my clients, so the overture of a compromise is a nice thing, but there's nothing that can do this evening to City ofMiami Page 157 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 act upon that, so it's either saying my hands are tied because I can't get to my clients this evening, go ahead, you're forced to make a vote, or it's to reconsider your initial feeling, which was to defer this for a short period of time and give the parties an opportunity to have some constructive discussion with a view towards arriving at a compromise. In the event that we are unable to do so, then this Commission, as the decision -makers and friers offact, will be the first to know, because it will then be your obligation to make a very difficult decision. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And ifI may --? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff I propose we vote. I propose that we vote on the extension of 30 days. We had the motion, we had a second. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but we need to be clear on what is going to happen on 30 days. Commissioner Sarnoff That we will bring this back in 30 days -- does anybody know the date of the PZ item? Ms. Thompson: April 26. Commissioner Sarnoff April 26, and the first item up will be this issue, and we simply vote. Chairman Gonzalez: And we simply vote. Commissioner Sarnoff Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: There will be no more input. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk? Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney, there will be no -- Mr. Fernandez: Again -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- more testimony, it will be just a simple vote. Mr. Fernandez: And that is that you would spend the next 30 days, approximately, reading all of the material and information, because none of the parties would be able to communicate to you, or to your staff -- Chairman Gonzalez: No, of course not. Mr. Fernandez: -- the progress or lack of progress that they have been making during these 30 days. That is the motion as I understand it. Commissioner Sarnoff Correct, correct. Mr. Fernandez: That there will be no speakers -- Commissioner Sarnoff Correct. Mr. Fernandez: -- on April 26. Chairman Gonzalez: No speakers. City ofMiami Page 158 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Mr. Fernandez: It would be the City Commission calling for a vote, period. Commissioner Sarnoff Couldn't have said it better, Mr. City Attorney, ifI said it myself which I think did. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And may I --? Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- Sarnoff, I just want to ask the Chairman. I know that there's three other -- Are we going to allow the three others to at least --? I know, Vizcaya, are they going to be able to put something on the record now or you want to just --? I'm going to defer to you because you -- Commissioner Sarnoff Here's -- let's just vote on the -- let's just simply vote on what I just proposed, period. What they do is what they do. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Has it been seconded or you want me to second it? You -- I second. Commissioner Regalado: I already seconded. Commissioner Sarnoff Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, so we're going to -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion on the floor to come back on the 26th, first item in the morning -- Commissioner Sarnoff Right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman? Chairman Gonzalez: -- to just vote on PZ.1, PZ.2, and PZ.3. It's just going to be the Commission meeting to vote on these three items. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: No more testimony will be accepted. No one will be able to -- Mr. Fernandez: No reports from anybody as to -- Chairman Gonzalez: No re -- Mr. Fernandez: -- progress or lack of progress? Correct, understood. Chairman Gonzalez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Then how are we going to --? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 159 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. I -- Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I want to -- first of all, it's been a very long night. It's hard for us to try to make the right decision, and I know that whatever decision we make, and I take my responsibility very seriously, and that's why it's very important that when we make a decision like this -- because I think there is still room where we're all going to be winners, and it's sad when you see a community, when you see neighbors, Vizcaya, Grovites, you know, a developer, different homeowner associations pinned against each other when I think that through communicating, through compromising, I think that we could do what's right for the City, so I just want to extend my sincere appreciation to all the parties that are keeping the avenues open to fry to find a solution, because the last thing that we want to do is jeopardize Vizcaya. The last thing that we want to do is really upset a community that has shown -- that has come here, to go in front of this government to make a decision. I think that everyone should understand that we need time to review all these documents. There's a lot of documents that were put on the record; testimony, expert witnesses, cross-examination where I still haven't figured it out, and I would like to get the minutes to fry to read some of them and be able to make an intelligent decision so that, you know, you would have the opportunity to criticize us but at least you would say that we did all we could to bring forth an intelligent decision for the entire City, so once again, Mr. Chairman, I praise you for conducting such a wonderful meeting, and I thank all of those who took time away from their family to come in front of this legislative body, so good night and we hope that somehow compromises are reached and we will make a decision. Ms. Thompson: Before you break, I just want to make sure that your record is clear that that motion to continue was for PZ.1, PZ.2, and PZ.3. Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ. 2 and PZ.3, yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. PZ.2 06-01060zc ORDINANCE Second 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, WITHOUT AFFECTING THE "NCD-3" NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT, AS APPLICABLE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 160 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 06-01060zc Analysis.pdf 06-01060zc Zoning Map - Old.pdf 06-01060zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-01060zc ZB 09-11-06 & CC 03-22-07 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-01060zc ZB Fact Sheet 07-10-06.pdf 06-01060zc ZB Fact Sheet 09-11-06.pdf 06-01060zc ZB Reso (Old).PDF 06-01060zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-010601u & 06-01060zc CC Exhibit A (Old).pdf 06-01060zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01060zc, 06-010601u & 06-01060mu CC Zoning Map - Updated.pdf 06-01060zc CC Legislation (Version 3).PDF 06-01060zc CC SR 03-22-07 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01060zc CC 04-26-07 Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 06-01060zc ZB Reso (With Revised Legal).pdf 06-010601u, 06-01060zc & 06-01060mu CC Exhibit A (Revised Legal).pdf 06-01060zc Submittal - News Article.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal E-mail John Lukacs.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Grove Bay Residences Motion.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Grove Bay Residences MUSP.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Illustration of Devp. Site.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Jack Luft, Luft Consulting.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Letter Hadley Williams.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Letter- Natioanal Trust for Historic Preservation.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Letter- US Dept of the Interior National Park Serv..pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Photos- Lucia Dougherty.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal presented by Goggins.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal presented by Henry Iler.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal presented by John Lukacs.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Report on the Impact by Shubin.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Report on the Impact by Subratabasu.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Resolution presented by Ivan Rodriquez.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Richard J. Heisenbottle.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Shoreline Devp. Review Committee Reso..pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Size Comparison - Ellie Haydock.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal transcripts.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal viewshed impact assessment.pdf 06-01060zc CC SR Fact Sheet 04-26-07.pdf 06-01060zc Submittal Comm. Sarnoff Letter.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 and 06-01060mu. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-4 Multifamily City ofMiami Page 161 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 High -Density Residential, without affecting the NCD-3 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, as applicable, for the proposed 300 Grove Bay Residences Major Use Special Permit. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to continue items PZ.1, 2, and 3 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for April 26, 2007 for the sole purpose of voting on said items. Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.1 for minutes referencing item PZ.2. PZ.3 06-01060mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE 300 GROVE BAY RESIDENCES PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A THREE -BUILDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 304 FEET TO 411 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 300 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; AND APPROXIMATELY 642 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 162 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 06-01060mu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01060mu - PAB Analysis.pdf 06-01060mu - 3D Photo.pdf 06-01060mu - PAB Zoning Map - Old.pdf 06-01060mu - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-01060mu - Projects in the Vicinity.pdf 06-01060mu - Traffic Sufficiency Letter (6.7.06).pdf 06-01060mu - Plat and Street Committee Letter (6.6.06).pdf 06-01060mu - HEPB Resolution (6.6.06).pdf 06-01060mu - UDRB Resolution (5.17.06).pdf 06-01060mu - Large Scale Development Committee Sign -In Sheet (5.17.06).pdf 06-01060mu - School Board Comments (5.05.06).pdf 06-01060mu - MDAD Planning Comments (5.2.06).pdf 06-01060mu - Solid Waste Comments (5.1.06).pdf 06-01060mu - Public Works Comments (4.28.06).pdf 06-01060mu - Pre -Application Meeting Sign -In Sheet (4.20.06).pdf 06-01060mu - IDRC Comments (4.4.06).pdf 06-01060mu - Miami -Dade Transit Bus Maps (Routes 12 & 48).pdf 06-01060mu - Mercy Hospital MUSP Resolution 93-608 (9.27.93).pdf 06-01060mu - DCA Mercy Hospital DRI letter (7.12.93).pdf 06-01060mu - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-01060mu - Exhibit A (Old).pdf 06-01060mu - Exhibit B.pdf 06-01060mu PAB Reso.PDF 06-01060mu Outside Cover.PDF 06-01060mu Inside Cover.PDF 06-01060mu Table of Contents.PDF 06-01060mu Project Information.PDF 06-01060mu Letter of Intent.PDF 06-01060mu Major Use Special Permit, Rezoning and Land Use Applications (Old).PDF 06-01060mu Zoning Write Up.PDF 06-01060mu Zoning Atlas.PDF 06-01060mu Project Data Sheet.PDF 06-01060mu Deed Property Printout.PDF 06-01060mu Ownership List.PDF 06-01060mu State of Florida Documents.PDF 06-01060mu Owner's Authorization Letter.PDF 06-01060mu Directory of Project Principals.PDF 06-01060mu Project Description.PDF 06-01060mu Supporting Documents.PDF 06-01060mu Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF 06-01060mu Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF 06-01060mu Site Utility Study.PDF 06-01060mu Economic Impact Study.PDF 06-01060mu Survey of Property (Old).PDF 06-01060mu Drawings Submitted.pdf 06-01060zc, 06-010601u & 06-01060mu CC Zoning Map - Updated.pdf 06-01060mu CC Analysis.pdf 06-01060mu CC Legislation.PDF 06-01060mu CC Fact Sheet.pdf 06-010601u, 06-01060zc & 06-01060mu Revised Survey & Legal Description.PDF 06-010601u, 06-01060zc & 06-01060mu CC Exhibit A (Revised Legal).pdf 06-01060mu Major Use Special Permit, Rezoning and Land Use Applications (With Rev City ofMiami Page 163 Printed on 5/7/2007 City Commission Meeting Minutes March 27, 2007 06-01060mu Submittal - News Article.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal E-mail John Lukacs.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Grove Bay Residences Motion.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Grove Bay Residences MUSP.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Illustration of Devp. Site.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Jack Luft, Luft Consulting.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Letter Hadley Wlliams.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Letter- Natioanal Trust for Historic Preservation.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Letter- US Dept of the Interior National Park Serv..pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Photos- Lucia Dougherty.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal presented by Goggins.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal presented by Henry Iler.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal presented by John Lukacs.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Report on the Impact by Shubin.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Report on the Impact by Subratabasu.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Resolution presented by Ivan Rodriquez.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Richard J. Heisenbottle.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Shoreline Devp. Review Committee Reso..pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Size Comparison - Ellie Haydock.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal transcripts.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal viewshed impact assessment.pdf 06-01060mu CC Fact Sheet 04-26-07.pdf 06-01060mu Submittal Comm. Sarnoff Letter.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 with conditions*. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on June 6, 2006 by a vote of 8-0. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the majority of affirmative votes in favor to City Commission on September 20, 2006 by a vote of 3-3. See companion File IDs 06-010601u and 06-01060zc. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the 300 Grove Bay Residences project. CONTINUED A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was passed unanimously, to continue items PZ.1, 2, and 3 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for April 26, 2007 for the sole purpose of voting on said items. Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.1 for minutes referencing item PZ.3. City ofMiami Page 164 Printed on 5/7/2007