Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2007-06-21 Miami 21 WorkshopMINUTES OF THE CITY OF MIAMI MIAMI 21 WORKSHOP On the 21 st day of June 2007, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met in the Commission Chambers at Miami City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida 33136. The meeting was called to order at 2:25 p.m., with the following individuals found to be present: Chairman Angel Gonzalez, District 1 Vice Chairman Joe Sanchez, District 3 Commissioner Tomas Regalado, District 4 Commissioner Marc D. Sarnoff, District 2 Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Maria J. Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director, Planning Lourdes Slazyk, Zoning Administrator Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Pamela E. Burns, Assistant City Clerk Marina Khoury, Duany Plater-Zyberk Andrew Dolkart, Miami Economic Associates 1 June 21, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: (INAUDIBLE) workshop. Madam City Attorney, will you read the order? Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Any person who receives compensation, remuneration, or expenses for conducting lobbying activities is required to register as a lobbyist with the City Clerk prior to engaging in lobbying activities for City staff, boards, committees, or the City Commission. A copy of the applicable ordinance is available in the Office of the City Clerk at this Miami City Hall. A workshop today related to the enactment of the Zoning Code entitled "Miami 21 Code" will be held, starting today at 2 p.m. and ending on 5 p.m., on June 21, by the City Commission. This workshop will be for the purpose of discussion among the Commissioners relative to the provision of the proposed Miami 21 Code. No public input will be taken. All interested persons may attend, and in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities -- (Technical Difficulties) Chairman Gonzalez: It's not working. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): OK. It's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. I'm sorry. It's working now. Ms. Chiaro: -- from the Clerk. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Ms. Thompson: Just for the record, all of that did not record, but we do have the official advertisement here. Chairman Gonzalez: That's a very good beginning for Miami 21, no sound system. Yes, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: It's not on. Chairman Gonzalez: It's not on. Hello. Commissioner Regalado: No, I don't mean the mike. I mean, is this going to be broadcast? Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Yes, it will be. Commissioner Regalado: It will be. When? Mr. Hernandez: I'll double-check right now. It's supposed to be televised on 57 -- on 77. Chairman Gonzalez: They are -- OK. They say we are on the air, so let's go with it. It's 2:30 already. All right. Good afternoon. 2 June 21, 2007 Marina Khoury: Good afternoon. I'm Marina Khoury. I'm a director with DPZ (Duany Plater- Zyberk). Liz, unfortunately, is in Europe and couldn't attend, but she'll be here next week, and so I'm going to run you through the presentation. I'm not sure if you want me to run you through the whole thing and then ask -- wait till the end for questions, but if you see something that you would like to ask a question on, feel free to interrupt me; otherwise, I'll keep talking. All right, so the presentations, you have the eight or nine chapters of the presentation today. I won't read them, but I'll get into them. As you well know, it's a huge team that's been working on this. We started the process back in June of 2005, where the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) plan is on it, but there's obviously the transportation component, a detailed economic development component, and what we -- Nancy Stroud is here from the Legal, who's been helping us write the Code. There's been public relations -- many public relations firms involved, and obviously, we've been in discussions with many of the different City departments. Since we began the process, we've had -- I can't count, but practically every week or biweekly meetings with, not only the City's Planning Department and Zoning, but also other departments, and concurrently, there are other studies that have been going on that have impacted what we're going; the Parks and Open Space Master Plan, which was recently adopted and the Downtown Master Plan update that Zyscovich is working on, so the goals. You've seen this before. It's the dual goals of conservation and development that we feel that Miami 21 is trying to address. The conservation of not only the neighborhoods and the historical sites, but also the natural environment, the river walks and bay walks, and how do you enhance development, not only on the corridors, but specifically in the downtown area. There's five points here that we've -- we feel the Code has tried to address in terms of conservation; one is the preserving of the single-family neighborhoods and the historic neighborhoods. There are four in the City of Miami; currently a fifth one, all in the east quadrant; have improved the relationship between residential neighborhoods and the adjacent commercial corridor. We've worked very, very hard on trying to find the appropriate transitions of height and density while not trying to take away too many development rights. The preservation of the historic sites. Obviously, access to the natural environment, as well as bay walks and river walks, and we've gone a long way towards trying to provide promenades along the river walk as well as the Bayfront, and also an ambitious green building program, as well as wider sidewalks that would enable greater trees to be planted, et cetera. In terms of development, we're hoping to develop the corridors as transit -oriented walkable centers. Again, an emphasis on the downtown as a transit -orient walkable focus for the entire region, improving the public realm, with pedestrian -friendly frontages. A lot of the Code addresses different ways in which those frontages can be made more attractive to encourage people to walk; ensuring that the infrastructure capability is there to meet the development capacity, and also maintaining the future growth capacity of the downtown, and that dovetails into some successional zoning, which I'll get into a little further down the line. In the implementation of the Miami 21 Code, we've broken it up into two different sections. There's the private realm, which is really what the Zoning Code addresses, how -- as specific designs of the building, how they sit on the lot, what the setbacks are; trying to encourage habitable space to conceal parking, et cetera; many cross -block passages for buildings that are within a certain length or width; transitions of height and density, I spoke about, and predictable -- predictability, which was a key component of not only height, but also of floor plates, which we're limiting the floor plates to certain sizes, and I'll get into that a little further in the presentation, but in conjunction with working with realtors and architects, we've come up with what we think is a good floor plate size, and then the public realm. Article 8, which is the 3 June 21, 2007 last chapter of the Code, deals with the detailing of the streets, and the same way that we have these transect zones that require and mandate certain conditions, we're hoping that the thoroughfares that are such a key component of the City, as Liz has said in the past, make up maybe 40 percent of your city, will find ways to handle how our Code is being defined, so community input. As you know, we've had much community input, and that's -- you have a list of all the different medians [sic] and medias that had been used. We've had countless meetings. We know -- you know you've had a lot of different workshops. We've had different stakeholder meetings with some neighborhood organizations, and many more than once; really trying to work hard to meet with them and understand the concerns that they had and make whatever adjustments we felt were necessary. We've also had specialized meetings. We've met with the AIA (American Institute of Architects) and architects who have carefully scrutinized our Code and continue to provide us some very valuable feedback as to how we can refine and make the necessary adjustments to our project. We've met with land use attorneys, who have also given us feedback on the legal implications of what we're trying to do, and obviously, Nancy's been, as well as the City's Legal Department, are very involved in that. There's the Web site. There's these e-mail (electronic). There's a lot of questions that have been answered. We've -- OK. There're a couple of outstanding issues that we feel are -- that we'll -- that I'll lay out in front of you towards the end of the presentation. We feel strongly that we've -- there're some people who disagree with what our professional opinion might be. I'll -- we'll discuss that with you and put it out for your consideration so that you can help us decide. We feel it should be you all deciding how that should be handled, but I'll run through the presentation before I get to it. All right, so the Code. We're hoping to -- and we have significantly simplified the -- your Zoning Code. There are eight articles, as well as the map, and they're listed here, and I'm going to run you through all eight. The zoning map, you know the transect zones. There are basically six transect zones, ranging from T 1 all the way to T6, and the T6, which are the high -density zones, are the ones that have been further broken down into additional categories to try accommodate the different high density zones that you have within the City. In addition to that, there are districts. This quadrant happens to have two districts, which are -- basically has specialized uses, an industrial one, as well as what we're calling light workplace, and then there are civic zones. Your G/I (Government/Institutional) current zoning is being replaced by CI, which is civic institution, and there are changes being made to that one, and then there's civic space, which is your parks and open space. In addition to that -- and I'll show you drawings -- each zoning category is further broken down into subcategories of R, L, and 0; "R" meaning restricted, and typically, what it means is that any time you see an "R," it's strictly only residential, and that's in the high density as well as the low density areas. "L" is limited use, which means that there's a limited commercial or retail component to it, and "0" means it's open use. In other words, it could be all office, all commercial, all -- or all residential, so the first article is Article 1; you have that. It's further broken down into three different definition sections. There's a definition of the building functions. We've heard a lot about how the City has three hundred and sixty - something uses -- existing uses right now, and they've been cate -- they've been further grouped into 46 different ones. It's not that we've gotten rid of the three hundred and twenty -some, but in -- we found a lot of redundancies in there, and we've tried to fold all the different uses you had into eight major categories that run from residential, lodging, commercial, office, and industrial, civil support, and civic, and we folded those into additional subcategories that are in there, so all the uses that you currently have in the city are now allowed. In fact, we feel our Code is not so much use base but form base, so as a result of that, the uses are much more flexible on what's allowed or not allowed in the Code, but it is restricted in terms of the intensity of the use, and 4 June 21, 2007 that's the first section that you'll see defined. The second one are terms and signs. There's a whole section on signs. That hasn't changed much from what your existing Code has right now. Article 2 are the general provisions that deal with the purpose and the intent of Miami 21, and it very clearly outlines what the goals should be for the City in terms of what the goals should be from a community standpoint, from a building standpoint, and from a block standpoint, and it deals with everything from creating a job housing balance to creating walkable street. It's the lofty goals that are -- that we're all trying to aspire to for the City of Miami. Article 3 is called General To All [sic] Zones, and it's issues that apply to every single transect category, and it deals with a description of what each transect zone is, as well as clarifications on density calculations, how to measure heights, certain environmental requirements, certain issues that deal with thoroughfare, such as vision clearances that are a requirement regardless of what transect zone you're in, and then there are three or four important categories. The special area plans that I will talk about a little bit further on, but basically that's about -- amassing parcels that are greater than nine acres, and allowing the City to work with developers to try -- create a special area, a little bit like you did with Midtown, and then there's -- it also describes the public benefits program in great detail, which I will get into, and then there's historic preservation standards, obviously, but everything you see in Article 3 is relevant to the entire quadrant. Article 4 is the graphic part of the Code, and it basically deals with all the standards and tables. The first table is the transect zone description. Again, describes to you what the intent of each transect zone is. The -- Table 2 is what I call the cheat sheet, Miami 21 summary. It's a general summary of the different requirements for each transect zone that deal with lot coverage, lot disposition, setbacks, height, what frontages are allowed, et cetera. We're hoping it'll be an easy sheet that architects can go to to find out in one glance, not only what their Zoning Code requires or their zoning designa -- site, but what others around them might need. Here's the usage table I was eluding to before. It's a very easy -- it entailed a lot of work, but it's a very easy, we're hoping, Code to use, and basically, as you can see, as it goes across a chart -- across the transect zones, we took the first residential categories as an example. Any time you see an "R," it means that use is allowed by right. Any time you see a "W," it means it's allowed by warrant, so it's an administrative review, and if it's allowed by "E," an exception, then that means that it has to go through a public hearing. We worked very hard to make sure that what's allowed now in the Code is allowed now on people's property, so it's -- would be hard-pressed to find areas that don't have uses that they can current -- that they currently have that they no longer can avail themselves of, unless it's an area that is deliberately transitioning, for example, from industrial to a T5 residential. Now, in addition to that, there's the intensity charts, and what those do is specify the parking requirements for each of these areas, as well as any additional regulations that might apply, so for example, in the residential, it tells you if you're going to have a home office, what the size of that home office should be, what the limits are in terms of parking; same with the live -work. If you have a live -work, there are additional restrictions that deal with that; what kind of parking is allowed for the live -work, et cetera and et cetera, so first you would see what use is allowed, and then you would go to this chart to find out what your parking requirements are. Article 5 deals with parking and loading. There's a diagram -- sorry, not Article 5, Table 5. There's a diagram that talks about shared parking ratios. We're hoping that the City will be a little bit aggressive about their parking standards, and we've simplified them tremendously from what the existing Code requires, and we're hoping that -- for example, there's an office building downtown in which the office workers are there during the day but not at night, and can be shared with, for example, some residential parking at night. There's also the parking standards, which come from your Code, as well as loading standards. We worked with a 5 June 21, 2007 lot of architects, who told us that the loading standards in the Code, as it currently stands, were overly generous, so we tried to tighten them up, and then there's a few tables that describe the different frontages that reinforce the idea of what transect you're in, so here's a description of all the private frontages that run from porch and fence to arcades to galleries. It gives you a description of what those are, and then along the right-hand side, you see what transect zones they're allowed in, so for example, you wouldn't want to see a porch downtown, the same way you wouldn't want to see an arcade or a gallery in a single-family neighborhood. We're hoping this will help guide the architects in terms of the frontages that they would be allowed to apply to their front setbacks, and the same goes with civic space and open space. We worked with Goody Clancy, and we've also defined open space. It's not -- and green space -- only about providing a percentage of it, but it's about trying to provide it in a shape and form that makes sense, so if you provide a plaza that has to look a certain way, percent of it is paved, certain amount of it is fronted by a street. It might be more formal than a green, for example. Same with courtyards, same with playgrounds; there are minimal dimensions attached to these, and again, a listing of the transect zones that they would be allowed in. Then there's the definitions illustrated simple. To give you an idea of some certain terms that we might be using that are new to the Code. For example, front layer or second layer or third layer that relate to where the parking can occur. Densities. There's been a lot of confusion about densities. Densities remain the same as they are in your current Code right now, but in addition to that, you have increased areas, specifically in the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) areas and in the downtown areas that can go as high as, I think, a thousand units per acre, and so this map refers you to what -- where they are, and people who are developing in these areas of increased development capacity or density are -- will be allowed obviously to avail themselves of that. The successional zoning illustrated. Well, you've heard Liz speak about this. Cities can grow basically in two ways; linearly or nodally, and we feel that Miami should be a city that sort of grows nodally, depending on where the transit occurs, and that's the next diagram, which is new, which basically shows your downtown, and -- which is transit -rich, the way it stands right now, and how the future transit stations could be accommodated. Article 5 deals with the specifics of each transect zone, and in addition to certain descriptive standards for each transect zone that deal with lot configuration, building configuration, architectural standards, lighting standards, there's the graphic sheet, and this is -- we've worked hard also to simplify this one, and this is the one sheet that tells you what your setbacks requirements are, what your heights allowances are, what your -- if you're adjacent, for example, to properties which -- that are not your immediate transect zone, you have additional restrictions. I'll speak a little bit more about that. If you have bonus heights, what those are; what frontages are allowed, all set to reinforce the transect zone you're in. We're hoping they're easy to use. Article 6 is sort of a catchall. All the supplemental regulations that are in your Code, and then we -- we've tried to streamline it significantly, but inevitably, there are other set - - other conditions and specifications we had to address. For example, if you're going to have an ancillary unit, what are the conditions by which that would be acceptable? Large-scale retail, how do you deal with that? Drive-thrus, how do you deal with that? It breaks it down by the different uses that are in your Table 3 of Article 4, and then it deals with additional off-street parking standards, which have, in essence, remained the same that your Code currently has met. There's a huge section on sign standards. That's one of the codes that we're -- one of the standards that we're really hoping to simplify in the next quadrant. It's an incredibly confusing and large section of your Code that we feel could greatly be simplified. It's just not something we've been able to tackle this quadrant. There's a -- an issue -- a section on fences and wall and then waterfront setbacks, which are very important, and the last one, Article 7 -- well, second to 6 June 21, 2007 last -- of procedures and nonconformities. That's also a -- that's been one that's given us a lot of work. The first -- what you see on the screen right now details a different or maps out the different processes that the City will have because we're getting rid of Class I, Class II, and instead, we've got uses that are allowed by -- projects that will be allowed by right. If it's use - related, it's by warrant or by exception, and then there's obviously waivers, and then variances that would have to go in front of a hearing board, and this sort of maps out in a clear way what the different steps are for that. We've heard loud and clear from many neighborhoods -- associations that wanted us to reinforce the language for notices, and I'll address that, too, but we feel we've done that in many cases, and then Article 8, which is supposed to be a stand-alone document, but we worked very hard with the City and the Public Works Department to have it incorporated into the Code because we felt that the two needed to work hand -in -hand. There's a general description in Article 8 of the different street types that we use and different lexicon and terminology of words, and the same way that certain frontages are allowed in different transect zones, this map shows that this -- gives you a description of how those frontages would change, the public frontages would change, depending on what transect zone you're in, so towards the bottom, you see wide sidewalks; the buildings had been set back, different trees, and there's -- in your article, there's a whole section on what trees should be allowed within what transect zone, but the trees are in grades, for example, and as you move towards the more residential neighborhoods, there's green plant, continuous green planting strips, there might be turf block, and then as you get to the greater single-family residences and trees might be clustered, they have -- you have a much wider front setback, et cetera, and then we also began this project by dividing the City up into the main corridors; 15 running east/west and north/south, and we worked with Gannett Fleming on identifying what those cross sections -- documenting first what the existing cross sections are, and then working with them on ways to not only beautify them, but also make sure that they comply with the traffic capacity that's so important for the City, so we've studied every corridor that's in the east quadrant, North Miami Avenue, Northeast 2nd Avenue, Northwest 2nd, for example, the ones that run north/south, and then east/west, there's 79th Street, there's 54th. There's a bunch of them, and that's -- they're all documented. In addition to that, we have a menu of streets, which we're hoping to hand over to the City to tell them, OK, here is all the different types of streets you can have within your residential districts, and even your commercial districts, and depending on what transect zone you're in, we're hoping that Public Works will be able -- will use that as a guide in which to decide which street sections are appropriate for what kind of neighborhoods. We've also proposed ways that streets can be improved, whether it's shared driveways, simple planting of streets -- of trees, turf block, which the City has begun to do already in certain neighborhoods to increase the pervious surfaces, and so there's a lot of slight improvements we've suggested, and then there are the specific sections, which I was just talking about. For example, this one shows the idea of creating a bike trail along the FEC (Florida East Coast) rail line within their right-of-way. North Miami Avenue is one, for example, which we just threw in here that has a -- that has different configurations, depending on whether -- what time of the day it is. Sometimes you can park; other times you can't, and so we've tried to work with how those street sections could work. Now, a brief description about the transect zones because we know they can be a little confusing. This is a quick description of them by -- in terms of what building types are allowed, so, for example, T3 is detached single-family, T5 is basically attached building type, and I have a little drawing here that tries to explain what each of them are, so for example -- so T3 is your single-family detached building type. You would find it on the map. There's a -- an illustration of what it is below, very Miami. You probably -- you've seen many, many streets that are this way. This is 7 June 21, 2007 the one district -- transect zone that is slightly different in terms of how -- in its application of R, L, and O. The first one is "R," single-family dwelling. That's your -- what you currently have is R-1. The change we've made -- we've tried to make to R-1 is to basically say the form stays the same. There are additional setbacks requirements for lots that are -- for homes that are on larger lots to prevent the McMansions, but what we're trying to prevent with the T3 R is basically the snout house or the two -car garage in the front, so we've limited your -- the parking to a certain percentage of the front of the house. R-2 is your duplex. Actually, it shouldn't say R-3. It should say R-2 down there. R-2 is your duplex housing, and that's been given a T3 0 designation, and again, the problem with your R-2 right now is that the entire front yard gets paved to accommodate for the parking. The third drawing below shows you ways in which we're trying to mandate that the parking happen in the rear, so that the front -- so that you have a front yard, and then T3 L is a new category that would replace R-1 or R-2, depending on where -- we've done that in both cases, and it's basically allowing for an outbuilding within your lot. Now, some neighborhoods have specifically asked for that and others have not asked for that, and so we're trying to allow it within neighborhoods that have a history of it. For example, I live in Buena Vista East and that -- there's a history of it there, and other residents wanted it there. Morningside, for example, did not want it there, so we didn't specify it for Morningside, so if you see T3 R, it means no outbuildings allowed. If you see T3 L, outbuildings are allowed, and they are regulated, and it's nine to eighteen units per acre, so that's your T3. T4 is one category that really doesn't exist in the City. Some of your R-3 is being replaced by T4 and some of your R-3 is being replaced by T5. T4 is really about partial -wall residential units. It's townhouses. T4 is basically live -works and/or the apartment houses you see in so many -- there's not much of a history of it here, but you see it in many of the other downtowns around the country. It's a four or six-pack, where you have two apartments per floor, and they're wonderful garden -type apartments that we're hoping to see encouraged within the City, and they're limited to three stories high, so very compatible with single-family neighborhoods. The difference between T3 - - T4 R and L and 0 is that T4 R is strictly residential, as I said before. T4 L allows you -- for the ground floor to be of a commercial use, so for example, it could be a live -work, and T3 0 means it could be a three-story office building or a three-story apartment building. What we're trying -- and T5 is really the literal translation of what your R-3 is now. What we're trying to prevent -- much of your R-3 now is about raising the houses on -- the buildings on (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and parking under that. We're trying to prevent that from happening, and we've written it into the Code in such a way to allow for parking to be provided off -site within a certain distance, or if you are going to be providing the parking, then you need to provide it in a way that it's shielded from the private principal frontage. This one is -- T5 is principally about attached building types. It's five stories high, the same way your R-3 is, even though your -- the height limits -- the heights measured in stories are more generous than what is currently in your Code right now, but again, T5 R, five -story residential only; T5 L also allows for only one story of either commercial or retail use, and T5 0 could be entirely office and/or entirely residential, and so you'll find that your T5 Os happen on commercial corridors, for example, at the center of different neighborhoods where you could imagine the neighborhood center would be identified there, and we have identified them in the east quadrant based on many of the previous charrettes we've done in previous years, and then as you start to get away from the -- those centers, it transitions to "L" and then strictly "R" within the residential neighborhoods off the corridors, and then T6. Now T6, as I said before, there are four -- five different T6 categories, and it's the one that's certainly given us the greatest headaches, but we've worked very hard to try -- manage, not only the development capacity that people have had on their property, but also being very sensitive to 8 June 21, 2007 the fact that the reason this Code came out in the first place was because there was this -- the transitions of C-1 immediately adjacent to single-family neighborhoods were giving people a lot of headaches, and so we wanted -- we found ways -- we believe, found ways to address that as an issue, so you're allowed 150 units per acre. Again, depending on with -- if you're in a residential increased area, then you can significantly increase from there. T6 R, regardless of whether you're T6-8 or 48, is strictly a residential with very limited other uses, as you'll see on the -- in your Article 4, Table 3. Very, very few uses are allowed in those. T6 L allows for two stories of commercial use. The rest has to be residential, and T6 0, obviously, is for downtown entire office building or whatever you want it to be, and obviously, again, principally, commercial buildings. We've defined the T6s in two different way -- there's two different -- I have it right here -- ways in which the form of the building is handled. One is a pedestal, which is the -- which are -- which relates to the first eight stories of the building, and then there's tower beyond it, and the towers have been restricted to 15,000 square feet for residential and 30,000 square feet for commercial. With the exception of the very high -density towers in the T6-36s and 48, which would allow for buildings of a slightly greater square footage of 18,000 in the -- for the residential floor plates, but they're still restricted to the 30 for the commercial, and as you can tell in these drawings, they have zero foot setbacks, if they're -- if you have a T6 adjacent to a T6, but the minute you're adjacent to either T5 or T4, and in very few cases, T3, but for the low T6s, you have many more additional setbacks that you have to comply with in the rear, as well as on the sides, and that's what the drawings on the bottom show you. There's additional ten foot -- each transect zone that you skip, you have to step back an additional 20 feet to give the single- family neighborhoods sort of some breathing room, and this is -- this drawing is a very simple drawing, but that very clearly illustrates the different ways you can transition across a transect zone, so in the left one, you see how you have a single-family neighborhood homes that abut right up to what you have -- what you currently have as C-1 right now, which translates to T6-8, and as you can see, you can step up to the T4 as a natural transition, but then you have to setback 20 feet, go up to the height limit of T5, which is five stories, and then setback an additional 20 feet, and then keep on going up. That's applicable for areas like Biscayne Boulevard where there's historic neighborhoods that abut right up to the C-1 property. In other parts of the City, there might be areas that are applicable to successional zoning, in which you could imagine that some of the houses immediately behind the C-1 or the commercial corridors might want to -- and some of the neighborhoods might want to see themselves upgraded or upzoned to a T4, which could be small apartment buildings and/or townhouses that are very much in line with the single- family neighborhoods, so you've heard us speak about this very technical, about the development capacity conversions. As you know, the City -- you have FARs (floor area ratios) for your codes -- in your existing Code right now. We've established something that we call FLR (floor lot ratio) for your T6s -- for your T6 categories. The previous categories, T3, T4, and T5, don't have FARs. They're strictly limited by the height of the building and the lot coverages that are allowed, but the T6s represent all of your special districts, and you have 27, and you have some that are 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, so you have many special districts that each have different FARs that also have bonuses that can be attached to them, and we worked really hard, and this is one sheet, and this has been up on the Web for a while in trying to make sure that the development conversion given to these buildings are the same, if not more than what people have right now, so that -- so we're very confident that the capacities are there. There are additional restrictions, as I said before, on height, but -- and there are additional restrictions, again, if you abut lower densities, but the capacity is there. Now it's a very simple system. If you have a lot size that's a hundred thousand square feet, for example, you no longer calculate gross lot area into the middle 9 June 21, 2007 of the street, into the middle of a park, into the middle of the water. Your calculations are based on your net lot area, and if you have an FLR of five, for example, you're allowed 500,000 square feet, and that includes everything. It includes parking; it includes mechanical rooms; it includes everything that you need within the building. That FLR has taken into consideration the fact that parking is excluded from calculations right now. It has taken into consideration that people can now calculate into their -- into the gross lot area, and we've -- and we went through this elaborate system of converting it step by step by step to really try to facilitate and to give neighbors a -- sort of a -- an understanding and a comfort level that they will -- that the height limits are going to be respected, so how do you use the Code? It's -- we're hoping, quite simple, even though, at first, the changes are -- it takes getting used to. The first thing you do is you go to the atlas and you find out what your property is zoned, so in this case, it's zoned T3 L. The next thing you would do is you would go to Article 3 and read up very quickly what the requirements are for those articles -- for that property. You know, it talks about heights, and it's quite simple, and people -- the architects and the attorneys are going to learn it very, very quickly. Then you would go to Article 4 and see what uses are allowed, so in this case, we've highlighted T3 L, and you can see what uses are allowed by right or by warrant. You would then go to the Table 4, which tells you what your parking requirements need to be, as well as any fut -- any additional parking requirement, if you are going to put some commercial or office space in there. You'd go to Article 5 and read up on the standards of what your building frontage is, lot disposition configurations would be. In this case, you would come in -- and this is it. It's all here. It's all -- it's not described in the text. The text deals with other issues, but this tells you, in one page, your setbacks, your height, your frontages that are allowed, your green space requirements, et cetera. You would then go to Article 6 and read up. If there's any supplemental regulations based on the use that you have selected that's in Article 4, so in this case, for example, we highlighted the supplemental regulations that apply to outbuildings, and then you would go to Article 7 and figure out what -- by what procedure you are going to be approved. If it's a waiver, what are the pre -application requirements and what are the steps, and so on and so forth down the line, so the public benefits. I'm going to touch on it very briefly. Most of you have -- you have all heard about it in the past, and I'm going to turn it over temporarily to Andrew Dolkart, who will explain the numbering and the valuation of the public benefit, which is a key part of how this was done, so obviously, there's a growing infrastructure need that's greater -- for the city that's greater than the capacity to provide for it. You have now your bonus program, which has an affordable housing, which we have heard is not remotely sufficient, as well as a PUD (Planned Unit Development) bonus that really doesn't do much, and so we've identified one, two, three, four, five, six areas, the last one being a new one, that are prioritized for the City. Obviously, the affordable workforce housing is the most important one. There's also parks and open space, which is critical to adapt the new residents that are moving in here, and even some parts of the City that don't have -- that had been identified by the Goody Clancy plan as having a shortage of parks. The historic preservation that we know is important; green buildings, key; Brownfield redevelopment. Civic and civil support spaces is a new one that we've added in the event that some -- a developer wants to provide an additional fire station or a police station or a civic use, it will be donated to the City. We felt we should give them a public benefit for that. We have heard from people that they want to see an arts and culture component added to this. We're studying the CANDO (Cultural Arts Neighborhood District Overlay) one that Miami Beach is doing that is providing a bunch of different tax incentives. We feel we will have to address that one in the next quadrant. It's not quite ready to be adapted into this one. The public benefit used to only be applicable to T6, as long as it wasn't abutting T3. It's now also applicable to T5 only 10 June 21, 2007 if it's abutting D1, so the housing. It will be administered by the City's [sic] of Miami's CDD (Community Development Department). There are three ways in which you can get the affordable housing benefit. One is to provide the units on -site, and you would be given twice the FLR. One is you provide the unit off -site, and you'd be given the equivalent FLR, and one is paying into the trust fund payment, and when you see, for example, T6-8 (12), that means that your -- you have an as -of -right height of eight and a bonus height of twelve, so those additional four stories is where you would pay into the public benefits, so T6-36 (48), for example, you have an as -of -right height of 36 and it can bonus up to 60. Parks in open space. Goody Clancy's park and master plan -- parks and open space master plan, is -- has identified where the park should be located within each -- they did this citywide, and they've done it for the east quadrant, so we're saying if you provide us space that has been identified by their plan, we'll give you twice the capacity to encourage developers to provide it where there's been -- where a shortfall has been identified. You can provide the space on -- off -site -- on -site for one times the equivalent area or, again, make a trust fund payment. Historic preservation is a TDL program that had -- that would allow you to restore on- or off -site, and that has come to you already. The green building, the Mayor's taken an aggressive approach, and we're saying that any building under -- over 50,000 square feet will have to be silver certified, but in addition, we wanted to provide some bonuses for buildings that go above and beyond the silver certification. The U.S. Green Building Council has a program called LEED, which is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, and they have four different classifications from certified silver, gold, and platinum, and depending on how aggressive you are with your green standards, we're giving you some additional capacity, so if you provide -- if your building gets a silver certification, then you'll get two percent more of what your FLR is; gold is four percent and platinum is thirteen percent, and these numbers come from, give or take, the general -- the nationwide average of what it costs a construction company to certify their buildings. It's twice that amount, so we've heard, for example, that a platinum, for example, takes -- costs about seven percent more from -- nationwide, and so we've basically doubled the percentage of it, and the more people and the construction industry in Miami learn the standards and learn the techniques, the cheaper that's going to get. There's going to be a learning curve, inevitably, but it might be a little more expensive at first, but as they start to become more familiar and they become more competitive amongst themselves, we see that number coming down. Brownfields are already incentives for it, but in case there's a shortfall in any way, we're providing an additional floor, and I'll turn it over to Andrew very quickly to just talk to you a little bit about the numbers. Andrew Dolkart: Good afternoon. I'm Andy Dolkart with Miami Economic Associates, and just for clarification purposes, Marina made comment early on that their team included a economic consultant and that when they got started, that was not our firm; that was a different firm who did a very fine job for them. We were brought in later on directly by the City to work side -by -side with DPZ to help come up with an approach for dealing with the fee part of the public benefits program, and that's really the sole area that we've been involved. As Marina mentioned, we -- the City has had an affordable housing bonus program that was established back in -- it's had a trust fund that was established quite some time ago, and over a period of years, developers have been able to pay money into that fund in return for additional FAR. Currently, the rate -- when the rate was originally established back in 1986, it was established at $6.67 per square foot of increase. That was raised in 2004 to $12.40. You're familiar with those numbers from everything that's come through here in recent years, and you know that when the rate went from 6.67 to 12.40, it didn't particularly slow down the level of interest in using the program, so that 11 June 21, 2007 increase was not particularly viewed as a terribly significant increase. As she also mentioned to you that, in addition to that program, the City has also allowed developers to get a PUD bonus that, you know, she pointed out, didn't do very much, but which they also didn't pay for. That was a bonus that they got for doing certain things with their design, but that they didn't really pay for. Our role was really to basically come up -- to look at that current system and to come up with a way to establish fees that had a logical methodology to it, as -- and when we look back at the current fees, the 6.67 and 12.40, there was really no basis for understanding how either of those numbers were ever particularly arrived at and there didn't seem to be a logical connection, and so our role was, first of all, to come up with a connection. Well, in that regard, if you think through the basic process under the normal system when you don't have a bonus program, what a developer can build on a piece of property is, in large, basically defined by the size of the property. If they want to build more, they need to own more property. When you go into a fee program where you're not requiring them to buy additional property to build more, but instead paying into a fund, it becomes, I think, fairly clear that there ought to be some connection between the fee that they would pay and what the additional land that they might have had to buy to get the additional development right would have cost, and that was really what we started out to try to do. We also wanted to try to create a system that could be done easily, that could be changed over time to reflect conditions, both in the market, as well as in the environment in which development occurs, and could be based on -- and therefore, could, you know, be easily worked through. Dealing with land values in an environment like the City of Miami, which is a highly urbanized and basically built -out environment through most of the city, means that we really don't have a simple way to get to the question of what land -- what the real value of land is. If a person wants to build, they're frequently buying a site that may already have a building on it, and then you get into the question of what is the cost to demolish that building, and is the sales price a function of the building there or the business that may be located in the building or whatever, so we were looking for a different way to cut at that that would be easily done, and what we basically said is within the development -- in development arena, a -- the price at which a residential unit is sold or square footage -- a square foot of office space is leased, deals with the fact that there's a pro forma that says so much of the cost that goes into that project is hard cost of building the building, so much is, you know, soft costs for architectural fees and whatever, so much can be paid for land, and of course, there's a profit element in that, but you can look at existing building and say if it's selling for a certain price per square foot of building, what percentage of that square foot of sales price would relate to what could be afford to be paid -- what the developer could afford to pay for land, and what we found is that right now, the market is really being set in your city and has been for a while by the pricing for residential units. It could change over time to be office buildings, but right now, the highest and best use of land and that which controls the pricing of land is residential buildings, and we found that of the sales price per square foot of building, approximately 15 percent of that would be attributable -- reasonably attributable to land, and that really is the starting point to the analysis we did. It's something that you can go out and look at what sales are in a community and you can pretty much figure out what the developers were paying in different segments -- sectors -- sections of the City for their land. Once you've gotten to that figure, whether you charge that amount or you charge a number that's either small -- greater or less than that amount is a matter of public policy. The City at this point -- the City Administration at this point is arguing that where they want to set that rate is at about 30 percent of the calculated land value per square foot of building, and with that -- and that amount would be paid on every bonus square foot because there would no longer be the PUD bonus situation. Clearly, pricing differs in sections of the City. Some areas 12 June 21, 2007 land values are higher than others, depending on whether they're near the water or what's around them, and so we've divided the eastern quadrant into nine basic subsectors that are shown to you on the map in front of you. Obviously, there are some closer to the water. Those are the areas that tend to have higher prices, land prices and higher unit prices, and then there are some off the water where the pricing tends to be lower, and from that, and using the City's current estimate of 30 percent of land value for -- per square foot of building for the bonus, this table shows you in each of the nine areas that are on the prior map what the bonus rate would be. At the highest, it would approximate about $25 per square foot of bonus building; at the lowest level, it would actually be somewhat below the current 12.40; it would be 10.75, but again, it would be charged on all bonus square feet. There would be no longer the free PUD bonus, and so that basically is the program. We have run some estimates of it, of some -- take some buildings that have come through your MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) process in recent years and looked at it. One particular case of a building that I worked on the MUSP, so I had the data pretty easily available to me, that paid about a million dollars under the current system. It's a building in -- basically, in the Brickell area. Under the new system and without the PUD bonus and whatever at the new rate, the fee on that building would be about $5 million, so it gives you a sense of how this really does increase the amount of money coming into the system. Ms. Khoury: Thank you. We've just handed out to you the latest amendments. Now, for us, the good news has been that we've presented this to the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), and they've made some certain recommendations, and since then, we've had a lot of people scrutinizing our Code, land use attorneys and architects specifically, and they have come back and made, in more cases than not, some good recommendations, and we've adjusted the Code accordingly, so you have in front of you 20 or so pages of amendments. It's up on the Web site for those who want to download it. It's a way for us to track the changes that we've made to the Code since it went to the PAB, and I have -- Commissioner Regalado: It's 22 pages -- Ms. Khoury: OK, 22 pages. Commissioner Regalado: -- and this 22 pages -- this was posted yesterday. Ms. Khoury: Yes, yes. Commissioner Regalado: June 20, 2007. Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: The file indicate changes from the original Miami 21, draft March 16, 2007 to June 20, 2007, so yesterday you -- the City or you posted 22 pages -- Ms. Khoury: Of amendments. Commissioner Regalado: -- of amendments. Today we try to download the historic preservation draft and it says Chapter 23 is currently being further reviewed and analyzed. As soon as an update file is available, it will be posted, so the historic preservation draft is not yet on the Web, 13 June 21, 2007 right? Ms. Khoury: Actually, I have to defer to the City to answer that one; I wouldn't know. Commissioner Regalado: I mean, we try -- maybe we got a bad computer, but we tried to pull Chapter 23, Historic Preservation, the draft, and we don't get anything. It says "as soon as an update file is available, it will be posted." You just -- you mention -- I thought you mention when you show one of the plans that this new design just came in, you said, or just was -- Ms. Khoury: Well, we've -- Commissioner Regalado: It was changed from the -- from what was it to -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- so it's a new one. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. I mean, obviously, the general contents of the Code are the same, but we have made adjustments, as you'll see in the amendments. It's tweaking. There's no big change. However, some -- and I'll -- if you'll allow me to run you through some examples of what has been amended -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I'm just asking because one of the first things that you mention was the public process, the 50 or some meetings, but today, we have a workshop and how difficult it was to get it on -- thank you, Mr. Chairman -- and -- but yesterday, we have 22 pages of amendment. Today, we had a workshop; we still don't have the historic preservation draft. Next week, the Commission has been called to vote on a first reading, so I wonder, what's in for the public? I mean, do they cancel weekend and start studying, from the public's point of view, what is -- what are the changes, what are the new designs and new plans? I mean, we probably we could like wing it because we're going to have a briefing from the Manager's Office before the City Commission. We may have -- if we get lucky and Elizabeth returns from -- Ms. Khoury: She's returning. Commissioner Regalado: -- Europe, you know, we may have the possibility of talking to her, but not the public. There's not going to be any other meeting or, I guess, hearing other than the minute we're going to vote, and this is going to be so crowded Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -that, of course, the Chairman will have to figure out a way to give everyone maybe a minute and a half and that's it, that's the end of the public process. I'm a little trouble by that because, you know, you don't vote on something that you're told that it's going to last the next hundred years without the public input, because I certainly don't want to go down in history and say, well, you know, that City Commission change the rules of the game, and you know, they didn't ask what I thought, and by the way, I'm going into an emerging course to learn the new language. I mean, the T6 and the -- it looks to me like tanks, you know, weapons, but I 14 June 21, 2007 will try to learn some of them. I'm really, really concerned about the public process here, and I'll tell you -- Applause. Commissioner Regalado: -- I don't -- I have also another question, and Mr. Chairman, with your permission. Something that I don't understand, I really cannot understand, and it's because I'm not that bright, but we are going to have to vote on creating a new set of Planning and Zoning Board, and if I read it well, it's only for the first quadrant, so we will have one Planning Zoning Board deciding the items that comes from the first quadrant, and then we had -- we will have another -- well, the regular, what we have now, the Planning and the Zoning Board deciding the other three quadrants, and I just don't understand how we can have two different sets of laws for one city. I mean, was it like -- was it "One City, One Future"? One city, so to me -- explain to me, please. Ms. Chiaro: I think that's a legal question. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? Ms. Chiaro: I think that's a legal question -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Ms. Chiaro: -- which I will -- Commissioner Regalado: It's not a legal question. It's a common sense question. Ms. Chiaro: Just -- Commissioner Regalado: Somebody has to explain how we're going to have two different kind of boards, one deciding half of the City or maybe more, or maybe one -- the two sets of board that we have now will be deciding for the poor part of the City, and the new board will be deciding for the rich part of the City, OK? Anybody care to explain? Ms. Chiaro: We've done the -- I will give you the legal explanation, and I'm comfortable that legally, the way it's set up to have a different zoning code applicable to a different quadrant of the City, and therefore, a different board doing the approvals that are necessary under that code, it is legally defensible; in fact, legally permissible. Just as we have 42 boards in the City doing various things, this board will be looking at a different set of rules and doing a different analysis. Chairman Gonzalez: May I? My question is, and I'm going to repeat the question. We're going to have two boards looking at two different zoning manuals? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: We're going to have one board for -- 15 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Miami 21? Ms. Chiaro: Yes -- Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Chiaro: -- that is correct. Chairman Gonzalez: For the quadrant of Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Then we're going to have a different zoning board -- Commissioner Regalado: For Allapattah -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- for my district? Ms. Chiaro: Because different -- yes -- Commissioner Regalado: -- and Flagami. Ms. Chiaro: -- that's correct, because a different set of -- a different analysis is required, a different approval process is set forth in the codes. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so which board is the best? Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Ms. Chiaro: Both of them, all of them. Commissioner Regalado: Both of them, all of them. No kidding, so one should not be necessary because we are going to do away with one. Ms. Chiaro: Not to be facetious, but the -- ultimately, you will not have your current Planning Advisory Board and your current Zoning Board as the -- if Miami 21 is in effect, you will then have -- both of those boards will be unnecessary because you have a different kind of advisory board set up under the Miami 21 Code. Commissioner Regalado: Well, so what this mean is that we are cutting 50 percent the public discourse? Yes? Ms. Chiaro: You have -- it's a completely different process. Commissioner Regalado: No, no. We're cutting 50 percent the public input because now we 16 June 21, 2007 have one planning board, people come, talk before the Planning Board; they leave, then they meet in front of the Zoning Board; they come; they meet, they talk, they protest, and they leave, and then they have the City Commission at third option to vent. Ms. Chiaro: Different item -- Commissioner Regalado: Now it's 50 -- now what we're trying -- I mean, what you're trying to do, not me, is to shorten the time and to reduce the hassle of listening to the people, I guess -- Ms. Chiaro: If I could address just that issue. Certain items now go to the Planning Advisory Board. Different items go to the Zoning Board. There is then a joinder of items that come to the City Commission, so even if you were doing an analysis just on the numbers, it would not be 50 percent less time for hearings. Certain items go to the Zoning Board never come to the City Commission. Certain items come to the Planning Advisory Board, they don't go to the Zoning Board, and then the City Commission makes the determination on certain joinder or certain other items, so it is not just a numbers analysis, but again, the determinations made by the board that's proposed in the Miami 21 Code are different determinations than under our current Code. Commissioner Regalado: So, for a while, we are going to have two cities? Ms. Chiaro: You will have different zoning applicable to the quadrants as they are approved, if they are approved. Commissioner Regalado: So it's no longer "One City, One Future"? Ms. Chiaro: There will be different zoning rules applied. Commissioner Regalado: So it's two cities? Ms. Khoury: Hopefully, one city moving towards a -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Two cities, one future. Ms. Khoury: -- common future. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, two cities and one future. Ms. Khoury: One future. Commissioner Regalado: I misspoke. I thought it was two city and no future, but -- OK. I -- I'm -- I can -- I still don't understand. I don't understand why do we pride ourselves on having so many public hearings and yet, yesterday, we post 22 pages of amendment? Why do we pride ourselves on historic preservation and yet, we don't have the draft? The draft is still been analyze. Now, I got two other question, and I will keep quiet. You have probably, I'm sure, gone to WASA (Water and Sewer Authority) for them to see the draft. I mean, not the new one, but whatever we had before. WASA has revised the draft of Miami 21, is that correct? 17 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: Have they seen -- has WASA seen our Code? I refer to Public Works. I don't know if they've shown it to WASA. We've had many goings back and forth with Public Works. Chairman Gonzalez: WASA is Miami -Dade Water and Sewer. Ms. Khoury: Yes. No. I know. Chairman Gonzalez: You know? Ms. Khoury: I know. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Khoury: We per -- DPZ personally has not had any meetings with WASA. Commissioner Regalado: OK. You have contact FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to show them the plan, right? Ms. Khoury: Well, FEMA has building code issues, not so much zoning code issues, and what -- and the FEMA requirements that are in your Zoning Code right now are in the -- there are flood - - base flood elevations that you have to meet, and the Code does address the FEMA requirements. Commissioner Regalado: No. I understand, but you know what happen in Biloxi? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: OK. I do, too. In Biloxi, you guys did the rezoning -- Ms. Khoury: I believe it was -- Commissioner Regalado: -- after Katrina, right? Ms. Khoury: -- new urbanists. It was Moule & Polyzoides, but under the tutelage of the CNU (Congress for the New Urbanism), yes. Commissioner Regalado: And FEMA came back to Biloxi, the city, and said, "You didn't ask us" -- that was after Katrina, by the way. Ms. Khoury: No, but you know, we are working with FEMA very, very closely now on the entire Gulf Coast. Commissioner Regalado: Right, I understand that, and I know everything what you're doing, but I know what you did last summer, like the movie, in Biloxi. Biloxi was a problem, as Miami is a problem, because it's a coastal city, and my concern is that FEMA and WASA should -- even the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) -- but FEMA most likely, because you know, everything east of US 1 is an emergency evacuation area by the standards of FEMA, and most of 18 June 21, 2007 the east quadrant falls within east of US 1, so I would think that someone would get FEMA involved. Ms. Khoury: Biloxi was very different than Miami in the sense that they had to decide at what base flood to rebuild, at what elevation. I think, if FEMA was to change their maps for the City of Miami -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, FEMA did change. Ms. Khoury: Yeah, but I'm talking for the City of Miami, we would have no choice but to comply -- I mean, the building Code would have no choice but to comply with new FEMA standards, and so what I -- what the Zoning Code says, which, I think, is the -- maybe Lourdes or Ana can address this any further -- cannot -- the Zoning Code can only but say you have to comply with what the FEMA standards are, and you have to, you know, stay above the flood elevation, but we're not going to -- it doesn't specify what the flood elevations are. Commissioner Regalado: I know, but understand what I'm trying to say. The Biloxi scenario could appear in Miami. The fact that the Biloxi City Council approve the code by DPZ, and then FEMA came and said, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. You guys didn't talk to us, so what we're going to do is we're going to change, and they have to change it because Biloxi, and New Orleans, and all Mississippi, all the Gulf, like you said it, they had to redo the zoning code because of rebuilding, but what I'm trying to say is that why push FEMA to make us change after we could have approve something, so that's -- I was saying. The most logical thing being the first quadrant under the water would have been to show the plans to FEMA. Lourdes Slazyk: Lourdes Slazyk, Zoning Administrator. For purposes of the Zoning Code where the FEMA requirements play a role is in the method of measurement when we measure height, where you measure from, and we do -- the Building Department does have the base flood elevations, every new structure is required to comply, and our Zoning Code, the Miami 21 Code tells you where you begin to measure your height from. If the FEMA elevation is different than the street, the average street or sidewalk elevation, FEMA elevation is what's used, and that's the same with the current Zoning Code as well -- Ms. Khoury: Exactly. Ms. Slazyk: -- as the Miami 21, so the only real practical thing becomes where we measure height from, and our Building Department does have the flood elevations on record. Ms. Khoury: And if FEMA were to change their maps, they would have -- the architects would have no choice or developers to comply with what the new standards are. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): Could I --? Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Chairman. 19 June 21, 2007 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Mr. -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Can I ask you a question to follow up that he asked? Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sarnoff Commissioner Sarnoff: I think one of the questions that Commissioner Regalado asked was a question I've always wanted to ask from this dais. I think I asked it probably once inartfully [sic]; maybe I'll get it out more artfully now. I understand that every time we approve a building that somebody has done research to indicate -- and his question was specific, that there's adequate water to be pumped into this building. That's a true statement, correct? Somebody has done that research. I mean, I read the Carl Hiaasen article. I know Carl Hiaasen is not a -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It had -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- is not an engineer. I realize that he probably was extrapolating something I felt, which is how much can we pump in water, but as long as we're going to recreate a new zone, if you will, a new zoning map and a new zoning code, I think the question that Commissioner Regalado is asking is have you let WASA see this so that they can review that there's adequate water for all the buildings that could be built? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Anything -- let me -- to the first question, has WASA seen Miami 21? We haven't taken it for their review, but to answer -- The follow up to your question, when -- this is the Zoning regulations. When the person goes for an application and gets a building permit, WASA has to review and approve. It's not that they just follow the zoning and you get a building permit, so WASA would come in. The other thing I would like to clarify -- and I know there has been some confusion about density and intensity. The density is still the same. We have not changed it. That's what we have today, what has been approved. What we are doing is dealing with more -- the zoning, which would be the intensity and we're adding some uses and we are putting height limitations, and we're doing the form -based Code, and that is just a clarification because I know sometimes it gets confusing. Are you increasing it? It's what we have today, and that has not changed. We -- if there's any changes to the land use map, we would need to go through the Department of Community Affairs. A week or two ago, we did make a presentation to the secretary of DCA (Department of Community Affairs) about it. He's coming down. We're meeting with him, so there will be no changes that -- at this point, it's -- the density, as we have it, we're leaving it. We're not touching it. It is the zoning regulations, and I know we into another question, but if -- whenever you -- Mr. Chairman, if you feel it's appropriate, I just want to just clarify a question that Commissioner Regalado also had on amendments. If Commissioner Sarnoff has more question -- if not, I can go back. On the -- it's not that -- just to clarify -- yesterday we put the 22 pages and that was it. There were amendments made that were presented at the Planning Advisory Board; they were discussed, and there was a public hearing. In addition to that, the PAB also had asked us to expand -- put some conditions -- some of those conditions were also addressed in this these amendments, and as we have reviewed and we have looked at the input that we have received from the public, there were additional amendments, but as -- throughout the process, the list of amendments have been up, and they have been -- probably what happen, yesterday was it was -- the latest was up, but it's not that there was nothing, and all of a sudden, a day before, the amendments came up. That has 20 June 21, 2007 been -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no. What I said is that -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- the process, and I just wanted to clarify that. Commissioner Regalado: -- from March 16 to yesterday, there were 22 pages of amendments, and before that, we had so many meetings of the public process, and what you say is that this is part of the public process, but the whole -- but the public still doesn't know, you know, what would be the final product that will be voted on -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: -- by the City Commission just one week from today or two weeks or - Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- the public has been informed in the sense that -- and like I said, on the Planning Advisory Board, where there was the public input, we -- the amendments that we had received were addressed, and like I said, there were other issues that came up. We also had -- because we were asked to go in front of the Urban Development Review Board to give a presentation. The UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) also had some concerns, and what we tried doing, thinking that it would be easier for the public to follow if -- that we -- the Code that you have in front of you is with everything that is with the amendments and the Code itself. The amendments we kept a different document because we felt it was easier for the public, who had been following if, in fact, their recommendations had been added or if we -- or the comments were -- so it was a way to facilitate the public following up on the comments, and for you to be able to vote on those amendments if you felt that you need -- if you agreed or didn't agree with them, but that was the intent, and as far as Chapter 23, it is going to be in Legistar. It is a separate document from Miami 21. Commissioner Regalado: But we're -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It will be part of it. Commissioner Regalado: -- but it's in the agenda -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It will -- Commissioner Regalado: -- for next week. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- be -- we have gone to -- the City Commission is the acting -- because it's a Code amendment, it comes to you. We have gone to the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation), and we have gone -- several groups have asked us, Dade Heritage Trust, and his -- preservation groups for us to be making a presentation. Again, it has been more a courtesy because you are the voting body that will act on it or not, on Chapter 23, which is part of our City Code, and it's just a clarification, and hopefully, on the first reading, there will be public discussion between first and second, you know -- 21 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, Ana, you might have confused me, then, because I thought the 22 pages -- is it fair to say that that's the book we just received this morning, that these 22 pages would be found in this book? Ms. Khoury: Yes. They're incorporated in there. The 22 pages is just an easy way to know what the changes are. We know that when there's a -- such an ambitious proposal in front a constant desire to sort of seek more information, but Commissioner, I can assure you, we've had a lot -- as you know, we've had a lot of meetings. Now, there are some issues we have been unable to agree on with certain people, but there hasn't been any new information that's been presented to us. The new information that has come to us, we've tried to accommodate it through these amendments, and I'm going to -- we're going to -- once I've gone through the presentation, I would like to lay those out for you for your consideration so that you can hear what those are, because we know what those outstanding issues are, and an extra meeting or another meeting won't resolve them if there happens to be a disagreement of -- we have a professional opinion, which we want to make to the City, and then let you decide as to how you want to handle it, and there's three or four of them which we'd like to -- which I'll tell you about after the presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me repeat the question that Mr. -- that Commissioner Sarnoff ask. These amendments are part of this book? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: They are in this book right now? Ms. Khoury: They are in the book right now. Their -- if you were to look at the Code that was given to you in March -- Chairman Gonzalez: Why were they handed to us right now? Ms. Khoury: Well, you have them in the book now. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I believe -- if it -- it was -- Chairman Gonzalez: Would it had been less confusing to say we have had 25 amendments and they are part of the book that you have in front of you? Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Well, the thing is that we just felt it would be easier for you to see it as one document. If you were to look at the March Code and then you look at the one you have now, you'd be hard -- you'd have to read the whole -- Chairman Gonzalez: And this -- Ms. Khoury: -- thing just to see what the differences are. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and there has been public hearings on all of these amendments? 22 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: There -- well, there was a public hearing at the PAB in which there were about -- Chairman Gonzalez: The question -- Ms. Khoury: -- six pages. No. There -- I'm answering. Chairman Gonzalez: -- is simple and it could be answered yes or no. Ms. Khoury: OK. There was -- Chairman Gonzalez: Has there been public hearings on these 25 amendments? Ms. Khoury: There had been -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes or no? Ms. Khoury: No. Commissioner Regalado: No. Chairman Gonzalez: No. Ms. Khoury: Not all. Commissioner Regalado: No. Chairman Gonzalez: All right -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Commissioner Sarnoff: So -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I said. Ms. Khoury: Not all. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- this book, you're saying -- Chairman Gonzalez: Now, with regard to Miami -Dade Water and Sewer -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I said. Chairman Gonzalez: -- even though my personal experience, I know that Miami -Dade Water and Sewer not always give you the right letter of allocation, but -- and you suppose to submit to Miami -Dade Water and Sewer the set of plans of the building that you're going to build or the house that you're going to build to see if you have enough water capacity for the new construction? 23 June 21, 2007 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: That would be the Building Department. Chairman Gonzalez: Or maybe you don't know because you don't build. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The Building Department -- Mr. Hernandez: Yes, you have to. Chairman Gonzalez: You have to, right? Mr. Hernandez: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, so that answers Commissioner Regalado concern. Have we had -- because let me tell you. This is very serious. I don't know what the rush is about Miami 21. I don't know what the rush is, but this is very serious. As Commissioner Regalado mention, we're going to be changing the Zoning Code for the entire City of Miami for a hundred years. It's not a decision that we can make tomorrow and amend it the day after, or repeal it, OK? This is serious decision that is going to affect the entire City of Miami, all of its residents, and all of its neighborhoods, all of their commercial properties. I mean, I don't know what the rush is, and I don't care to know, but I tell you, it's something that if we're going to do, we need to do it right, and make sure that we do it right, and make sure that everybody's informed, and maybe sure that everybody question has been answered and make sure -- because we may end up doing something that we might regret later on. Applause Chairman Gonzalez: No clapping. All right. Next question. Commissioner Sanchez, any questions? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Is the presentation completed? Ms. Khoury: No. I'd like -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. I'll speak when the presentation's completed. Ms. Khoury: Yes. May I just finish the presentation, then I'll --? So as we were talking before, you have a list of amendments here. I have a few in the presentation just to highlight for you the type of changes that have been made, so for example, on the first page here you see that we added the definition of a bike lane and a bike route. Chairman Gonzalez: Listen, my concern is not these amendments, because according to you, they are in the book. Ms. Khoury: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: We're going to be reading them either this afternoon or tonight. We're 24 June 21, 2007 going to be reading them. My concern is the public. The public hasn't had a chance to speak on the amendments, to say they're in favor or if they're against it, if they believe it's great, and if they believe it's not good, the public. Ms. Khoury: A lot of those amendments have come -- actually come from the public, who have requested these, but yes, not everybody has made -- has had a chance to review them, possibly. Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Regalado: I -- Mr. Hernandez: -- I think it's important to note that that's the reason why an ordinance has two readings. I know that we're the victims of having a very fluid and open process that is continually being, you know, improved, you continue to receive comments, and that's why we have this fine-tuning going on, and it'll happen forever, but I think that the idea is to be able to go into the first reading, allow the public the opportunity to speak, and speak on this [sic] comments and the amendments and any final revisions that you approve can be incorporated and then consider on the second reading. Ms. Khoury: There's also -- once the east quadrant, when and if it gets adopted, we're going to hopefully move into the other quadrants and be -- it's very important to sort of be testing out this -- to testing out this Code while the other quadrants are also being developed, and it not set in stone. There'll be tweaks that'll be constantly made, the same way that you're constantly tweaking your existing Code, hopefully, they'll be less, but they'll be diverted to not only tweak it while the other quadrants are being, but also at a final -- once we sort of -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me -- Ms. Khoury: -- approve both quadrants. Chairman Gonzalez: -- ask you a question. If we adopt Miami 21 on June 28, aren't the same rules going to apply to every quadrant in the City of Miami, other ones? Ms. Khoury: No. As far as I understand it, the rules would only apply to the east quadrant. Chairman Gonzalez: It would -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- only apply to the east quadrant. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The -- Chairman Gonzalez: Is that correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: If -- the east quadrant in Miami 21, it only applies to the east quadrant. We would have to go through the process of the other quadrants, come back to you -- go to the 25 June 21, 2007 PAB, come to you, adopt them, and then they would become effective on the other quadrants. We cannot impose rules that have not been approved for the other quadrants. In addition to that, as far as the transects where we've locate -- Commissioner Regalado: His question wasn't that. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: If the ques -- let me clarify. If the question -- Commissioner Regalado: No, that wasn't his question. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Is the question is -- if the book -- if the rules that we're putting in place, once we approve Miami 21 on the other quadrants, would they go back to that same book? The answer would be yes. What we have said is, if there are changes that need to be made in the book, because either through the testing we realized, you know, or -- you, as Commissioners, decide this is not working, it can be changed, similar to what we do when we come here for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, but the rules that we're defining in the book itself, not the atlas, those would be the rules for the rest of the City. Once the Miami 21 zoning is approved, and -- on the other quadrants, but yeah, that would be the rules, those would be the book. Commissioner Regalado: Exactly, so what we do next Thursday, it is basically giving the green light to establish, in principle, a new Zoning Code to the whole City of Miami, officially, only to the first quadrant, but like we were told from day one, the first quadrant will be replicated throughout the City. That's were the rules, and this is when I started having problems, because when I have the briefing from you, I try to ask about 32nd Avenue and 27th Avenue, and you were there. Elizabeth said, don't ask me any more questions, because she was trying to explain to me the first quadrant, but at the beginning of the briefing, she said, and remember, my training is to remember quotes. I'm a journalist; I have to remember quotes. Can't write everything, so she said, whatever this is, it will be replicated through all of the quadrants. Now, my question is do the people that attended all the public hearings, 90 percent of them from the first quadrant, represent or have been in power to represent all of the people of the City of Miami of the other quadrants because you still going to probably have public hearings when you have the other quadrants, but since the same rules that were approve, debated, and even change with the new draft during the public hearings, will be apply to the rest of the City, it would most likely be an exercise in futility to have a public hearing in Allapattah, or Flagami, or Shenandoah, because the same rules that were discussed in public hearings only with resident of your district will be apply to the rest of the City. I am -- Ms. Khoury: No. That's not how it's going to work. I mean, the idea is that we have this Code right now for the east quadrant, and as you state fairly, not -- I would venture to say 99 percent of the comments we have heard have been from people in the east quadrant, and it -- it was deliberately done that way -- Commissioner Regalado: -- so the people -- Ms. Khoury: -- and the other quadrants had not -- Commissioner Regalado: -- 99 percent of the comments were from people -- 26 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: The vast majority. Commissioner Regalado: -- from east quadrant? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Now, what we're going to do, the same way we did for the east quadrant, is the DPZ design team, as well as our consultants, we will -- what's taken so long with this Code is, in addition to the mapping of the transect zones, which is where we got a lot of the feedback from the residents, we had to write the Code and write the entire Code, and that's why it's taken a year. Now we will do the same that we did for the -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, yeah, but -- Ms. Khoury: -- other quadrant. Commissioner Regalado: -- excuse me. Help me, because you're very intelligent; I'm not. Ms. Khoury: No. Commissioner Regalado: You just said that 22 pages were the result of people input, is that correct? Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Architects and land use attorneys -- Commissioner Regalado: Oh -- Ms. Khoury: -- principally. Commissioner Regalado: -- land use attorneys, not people. Ms. Khoury: People. Yes, people. Commissioner Regalado: People, OK. People, OK. Correct me if I'm wrong, now -- and this is the point. See, the whole thing is wrong here because we made a mistake. We let you and the City Administration to do a first quadrant instead of having said at that moment, you do the whole city and you come back to the City Commission, but hear me out. You said it took a lot of time to write the Code, and the -- generally, the rules will be the one guiding the train in the other quadrant; that is correct, so when you were changing the rules or when you were writing the rules, some people showed up from his district and said, no, I don't like that, and you change it, and the changes becomes rules, so when you go to my area, you go to the rules that his people change, and the people that I represent cannot change the rules because after all, we just approve the new Code of -- the Zoning Code of the City of Miami, so what I'm saying -- I'm still trying to make it clear. I don't know how I can say it -- is that there are two cities: One with the people with input; the other with the people with no input, and that's what I think. Ms. Khoury: No. I understand what you're saying. I just want to explain to you the reason why we're doing this. 27 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- Ms. Khoury: No. Commissioner Regalado: -- the reason or the excuse -- Ms. Khoury: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: -- it's fine. I'm just saying -- Ms. Khoury: No. Commissioner Regalado: -- my constituents are out of the game. Ms. Khoury: No. We -- I disagree with that. We are going to give your constituents a chance to respond and reply and let us know exactly what they want within the -- Commissioner Regalado: And if they -- Ms. Khoury: -- within their (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Regalado: -- change these rules, we have to come back and change the rules -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Khoury: For the east -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Khoury: -- quadrant, yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- for the east quadrant? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Khoury: That's exactly the intent of it. Commissioner Regalado: That's complicated. Chairman Gonzalez: But that's -- Ms. Khoury: I know, but the -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- very complicated because -- 28 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: That's complicated. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you're going to go to his quadrant and the people in his quadrant may want to change some of the things that were approved in this Commissioner quadrant, all right -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- but then, when you get to my district, the people in my district may want to change what he change and what he approve -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and then when it comes to him -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the people in his district may want to change mine, his, his, and the other Commissioner that is not here today, so -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Chairman Gonzalez: -- let me tell you, this is getting very, very confusing. Commissioner Regalado: Yes. That's what I'm saying. Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman, if I may, let me pitch in and see if I can straighten this out a little bit. There are certain concepts that Miami 21 will carry through no matter where in the City of Miami, but those are good design concepts that I think can be accepted by all, issues like when you do a high-rise and you have a transition to a residential community. When you do the facade of a building to make the sidewalk more walkable, the form of the building, the tower and the base and so forth, those are the concepts that will govern across all quadrants, but every quadrant, in itself, will be different, and the application to every neighborhood reference zoning will be different and very specific to the neighborhood. It's not that we're creating rules from one quadrant that are going to apply to the others. The concepts, yes. If the concepts that we have that are what I call good design concepts, smart living, livable community -type concepts, those would apply, but every neighborhood has to be treated differently and has to be addressed in a zoning fashion that would be compatible with that neighborhood. Chairman Gonzalez: But then we're going to have five different Miami 21s. Mr. Hernandez: No. Ms. Khoury: No, we'll have one. Mr. Hernandez: No, no, you're not because the basic concept will be -- 29 June 21, 2007 Chairman Gonzalez: You say -- Mr. Hernandez: -- the same. Chairman Gonzalez: -- the basic concept, but there're going to be changes because I remember Arthur Teele keep saying here over and over and over no one shoe fits all, OK. The people in my district don't necessarily have to agree with the things that are being approved in Commissioner Sarnoff district. The people in his district have all the right to disagree with whatever the people in my district want to approve, and -- Mr. Hernandez: I -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so in every single district -- Mr. Hernandez: -- agree. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so if you say the principle, but there may be changes, then -- Mr. Hernandez: Well, because when I look at the problems that I see in Quadrant I -- look at the problems that we have. Brickell West, they want more height; Edgewater, they want more height -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Hernandez: -- Biscayne Boulevard, the MiMo (Miami Modern) District, they want less height. There are issues related to mostly height, where some people want upzoning; others want down -zoning. That's more specific to areas than to the general concept of Miami 21. The general concept will be constant across the City. The issues that I see are people that want more height, less height, and that will be specific to the neighborhood. Commissioner Regalado: No, it don't. No, it don't because it is about culture. It is about style. R-2 duplex, you have to park in the back, right? So you need an alley to go from the front -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: For a driveway -- a front driveway. Commissioner Regalado: -- to the back. Now how are we going to explain to the people that if they going to build a house, they have to park in the back, where the culture has always been park on the front? Chairman Gonzalez: The front. Commissioner Regalado: So it is about culture; it's about style; it's about neighborhoods. The other thing is that the corridors -- who decides which corridors are the one who are going to be transect, or whatever, T2-9 or T --? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think that it -- 30 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Regalado: If I live -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- like me, I live two blocks from 27th Avenue, commercial corridor, so most likely, somebody will build a building on 27th Avenue, and because of the transect, I'm going to have a building of four floors where now sits a residential house and a three floors, so most likely, I will be surrounded by more -- is it intensity or density? Because you're changing the word. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. I was clarifying. If the -- what we did -- and let me go back. Maybe I can explain -- Commissioner Regalado: And what I think -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- it's the zoning. Commissioner Regalado: -- it is, you know, now whenever we approve -- and we always do -- a building on a corridor, the people next to it on a residential, they come and they complain, and they complain, and maybe they get lucky. Maybe the City Commission see that they have the right and said no rezoning. Now, with the stroke of a pen and without any possibility of protesting, could just rezone into residential. You have like 15 days to protest. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The zoning -- the rezoning process hasn't changed. That comes to the City Com -- Commissioner Regalado: That's what -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It comes to the City Commission, and -- Commissioner Regalado: I understand that, but the way I read it -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- the -- Commissioner Regalado: -- it's different. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- with the -- the rezonings come to the City Commission, and then the notice is what we have today. Actually, what we have done on the zone -- what comes to Commission as rezoning is the same. On exceptions and variances, we have added more notice to the neighborhood associations that presently you don't have, so that has been added. The same as what we're calling waivers and warrants, which would be the equivalent to the Class II; those -- is the process that we have right now where we send it to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team); we put it on the Web, and it's also sent to the homeowner association, so we've added notice. As far as -- if I could give you an example, on 27th Avenue -- and we're familiar with that -- there were some development on high-rise. It's not that we are -- when we looked at the zoning and we compare what we have today versus what is it that we're proposing, we looked at the -- what was going on on those corridors; where was the commercial activity and 31 June 21, 2007 where was the present zoning, and we tried to look at that and then be able to compare it to how it -- what was adjacent, and it was a lot of community input that went in into what type of zoning goes, depending if it's commercial and depending if you're going to what we have today as a single-family residential or duplex, so there was -- the input of what goes on the map has been community. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There has been some disagreements, which is what Marina is saying, from DPZ, and we are here to present professionally what we feel. Again, you have the ultimate decision -- Chairman Gonzalez: With all -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- but many of the zonings -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- due -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- we've changed. Chairman Gonzalez: -- respect, I have to interrupt you. Did you -- have you concluded your presentation? Ms. Khoury: No, not yet. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. I believe that we agreed to be here until 5. You want to stay -- extend the hours, or you want to quit at 5? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Khoury: If I can just -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm leaving at 5. Ms. Khoury: -- let me tell you what I have here -- Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Sarnoff -- Ms. Khoury: -- and then you can decide -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- you leaving at 5? Ms. Khoury: -- whether you want to hear it or not? Commissioner Sarnoff: So then, let's go at 5. Chairman Gonzalez: We're leaving at 5. OK, so you better conclude your presentation so 32 June 21, 2007 because Commissioner Sarnoff is going to be the most impacted at -- Ms. Khoury: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- this point today. Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Khoury: I will -- Commissioner Regalado: You -- Chairman Gonzalez: We're all going to be -- Commissioner Regalado: -- and me. Chairman Gonzalez: -- impacted. We're all going to be -- Ms. Khoury: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- impacted -- Commissioner Regalado: No, that's the point. Chairman Gonzalez: -- but, you know. Ms. Khoury: I can do this quickly. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: He's the one -- Ms. Khoury: I'm going to go through -- Commissioner Regalado: -- to get to satisfy his constituents. Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sure that he has -- Commissioner Regalado: We are the one -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- a lot of questions, too, so -- Commissioner Regalado: -- that -- Ms. Khoury: OK. Well, I'm going to speed through these amendments to give you an idea of the kind of changes we've made because there have been tweaks, as the City Manager was saying. The general concepts and the general intent of the transect zones have not changed, and 33 June 21, 2007 just to clarify one thing. We began -- when we described the transect zones, we began by doing a brush stroke of translation of existing to new transect zones, which is how we would begin your quadrants, too, but then, in the specialized meeting with all the neighborhood associations is when we decided to either up or down the height, depending on the feedback we heard, and that's what we will be doing within your -- with your -- in your areas, just to clarify. OK, so I'll just throw in some typical amendments with -- per district to give you an idea of what kind of changes have been made because most of them are small tweaks. This is an example of clarifying the definition between -- of a bike lane and a bike route because we heard a lot of people say you're not considering biking. We are considering biking, and it's been added in the language in many of the different articles. Floor lot ratio. We said that the multiplier applied to everything above grade because people had questions of whether it applied above or below grade. For example, in Article 2, the kind of change -- amendments we've made is we've added, as the in -- within the intent, the fact that we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as well as not only encourage walkability [sic], but also, encourage bicycling. Measurements of height. We've tweaked the definition of measurements of height. For example, you see on the bottom, it says mezzanines extending beyond 33 percent of the floor area shall count as a second story. That is something we heard back from the architects. We had restricted that to 15 percent. They recommended that we increase that to 33. That's one of the kind of amendments we made. In Article 2, the kind of changes we've made are -- we had said that a special area plan would be required for any parcels of land to get developed that aggregate more than ten acres. It was suggested to us that that number be brought down to nine so that it wouldn't kick into the Comprehensive Plan changes, so we changed that to nine, and we also added an additional description of what the intent of a special area plan is. I won't read it; you see it here. In Article 2, for example, we added that T5 zones now can have an additional bonus height if they're abutting D-1, strictly for affordable housing. We also said that if a developer or a property owner wants to provide a civic or civil support space within their building, they would also be able to avail themselves of the public benefits program. We heard from the PAB loud and clear that they want some accountability in terms of the funds that are collected. We believe the Commission should decide how to allocate those funds within their own districts. However, there has been a -- there will be a parks and open space trust fund, as well as an affordable housing trust fund established for the monies to go so there is some transparency and accountability. Standards and tables. We've tweaked that. For example, from Richard Strell, we heard that the T6 in Edgewater area, they should limit the commercial; bring it down from four to two stories, so we've made that accommodation. Commissioner Sarnoff: What do you mean by that? Ms. Khoury: Well, initially, we said that in T6 -- in the T6 districts -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. Ms. Khoury: -- the high -density ones, you could have four stories of commercial space, and then the rest had to be residential. They advocated for reducing it to two stories, which we reluctantly agreed to. We also heard from some of the property owners that they felt that they wanted to prevent McMansions, so on wider lots and the 50 by, typically, 100, we've said that if you have a wider lot, your setbacks -- your front setbacks and side setbacks have to be -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE); has to be a little greater to prevent the big homes, which we hear is an 34 June 21, 2007 issue in some of the neighborhoods. Commissioner Sarnoff: How much of a side setback did you put in? Ms. Khoury: Well, it used to say five feet, but now it says if -- it's 20 percent of the lot width total minimum, so if you have a hundred feet, then you're going to have to provide twenty instead of ten. Specific to zones, we heard that if you -- we would ask that cross -block passages, for example, be provided every 250 feet. Architects said that that was too restrictive. We should encourage that to be more like -- to increase that to 340 feet, so we made that change. We've heard a lot about nonconforming structures, specifically in the D-1 areas and the T5, so we're saying that if you have a one-story building, even if the minimum height requirement is two, you can increase the use of that and the size of that building as a one-story, and it will not be a nonconforming structure. Oh, sorry. On the bottom -- I alluded to this before, but there's been a change in residential floor plates from 18 -- from 15 to 18 in the high transect zones. Again, small tweaks about additional ornamental heights and how high they can go. I won't bore you with that. Waterfront regulations. We got something from the Riverfront [sic] Commission asking us to consid -- to make a few changes; we've made that. It's in the Article 4. It's the last section of Article 6. It's here. Again, I won't read it, but you'll see it. It talks about the bay walk and the river walk, and it hopes to extend it along the entire length of the river, as opposed to stopping it at 5th Street, which I think is where it stops now. When we went to the UDRB Board, we heard that the intent was to dissolve them, since we felt that a lot of what the UDRB Board addresses -- and I sit on that board -- deals with urban design issues. We feel that the Code has gone a long way towards addressing these issues, but we heard from them that they still felt that that was warranted, so we've written that back into the procedures on Article 7, and then we've adapted the notice requirements for all the different processes because we also heard from a lot of the neighborhood associations that they wanted to be notified of all the changes. We -- again, we hope that this is when we'll see -- once this gets adopted and how it fall through on all the other quadrants. The reason there's such anxiety about notification is because what you have right now is so unpredictable, and we're hoping that while -- when this Code gets adopted and people start to see that liners are required and it's a predictable height, the need for notification might not be so great, but in the interim, it's being written into the Code, so for example, notices on waivers and warrants. At the time of application, the applicant has to notify, by certified mail, not only the abutting owners, but also the neighborhood and homeowner associations that are registered with the NET office. They have to submit certified receipts to the Planning Department. The decision will be posted on the City's Web site within five days, and it's also appealable, and any decision that's appealable goes through the same process. A similar process for the exceptions, variances, and rezonings; this time it's the City that notifies, by certified mail, owners within a certain radius of 500 feet, as well as all the associations that are registered with the NET offices. The property has to be posted as required by Chapter 62 of your Code. Newspaper publications, also, same thing as what's in the Code right now, and again, the -- they go through the same process for the appeals, and a few changes we've made to the maps, and we've -- they're minor changes, again, but for example, you -- up on the very north end of the City, there's a property that abuts the FEC that has -- that was rezoned. While this process is happening, inevitably, some properties are being rezoned, so we're having to adapt the map as a result. This is in the Design District, abutting Buena Vista East. The neighbors felt that they needed an additional buffer to buffer the Design District technically allowable heights of unlimited to their neighborhood, so we reduced it a step further to T4. In Commissioner Spence- 35 June 21, 2007 Jones' district, there's a building going up just south -- on 36th Street, south of 112. It's a project that's been approved. It made sense to upzone that property, so that -- the property adjacent to it since it's along the highway. In Wynwood, there's some -- along Northwest 2nd Avenue, there was a real desire to see some T5 come down where D-1 is, so those are the kind of changes we've made; some rezonings, more rezonings. I don't have to show you all of them, and that's it, so I'll be happy to answer your questions. I also have my -- Chairman Gonzalez: Questions. Ms. Khoury: -- the rest of the DPZ team here, who should feel free to answer if they feel they need to. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does that conclude your presentation? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me -- Mr. Chairman, the -- Ms. Khoury: Oh. Actually, I'm sorry. There's -- the most important -- if you don't mind. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you. There's a few outstanding issues that I feel we needed to bring up -- to raise. We have heard loud and clear from a lot of people. There are areas where our professional judgment has, in fact, differed from what we've heard, and so what we want to do is lay out these issues to you and then let you be the ones to decide, or at least, lay it out for your consideration. The first one is the Biscayne Boulevard, the MiMo area and the desire to reduce the height in the MiMo from -- that runs from 50th to 77th to a 35-foot height limit. We know that there have been studies that have suggested that that's what it should be. Recently, the SD-9 was adopted that called for an 85- or 95-foot height limit. DPZ believes -- our best professional judgment is that Biscayne Boulevard deserves a greater intensity and -- because of the width -- a higher height, and we feel that T5 is an appropriate transition, at a minimum. The reduction to T4, we feel, is just too much of a decrease in capacity. It also has a spiraling effect on properties that are immediately abutting that, so that's one that we know we have to address, and we'll ask you to take a look at it. I did want to clarify one thing because there seems to be a lot of confusion about it, and that is for those properties that are zoned T6. There's an area of the Biscayne Boulevard that does have a T6 zone. If they're abutting T3, they don't get to avail themselves of the public benefits, and then they have the additional setbacks they have to comply with. We've proposed a -- it's not a one solution. From 50th to 77th, there's a portion of the plan that we have agreed should be zoned T4, immediately abutting Morningside. Then there's some T5, and the T6s happen on the deeper properties and/or in places that are surrounded by T5. The other area of contention is the Edgewater neighborhood. What we are proposing is keeping with the existing zoning and the capacity. We believe it's somewhat inappropriate to set up the area for a capacity that is, in essence, unachievable, and we don't think it should be given the same T6 designation as the downtown area. We feel that a more appropriate transition should be provided, which is what we've given it. We have heard loud and clear from the -- a lot of vocal people in the neighborhood, and they've made some very good suggestions and -- that have been accommodated into the Code. They suggested that the FLR be increased; it was increased. They suggested that because they have substandard lots, that some setbacks be waived -- the front setbacks be waived for the towers. We did, indeed, do that. They asked that 36 June 21, 2007 they not be -- if they have nonconforming lots, that they be reviewed administratively; that was written into the Code. The reduce of the -- the reduction of the mixed use from four stories to two stories; that also was made. The one thing we disagree on is the increase of capacity, since we feel that's happened also -- it's happened to the -- as far as we're willing to let it go, in our judgment. Commissioner Sarnoff: What do you have it zoned now? Ms. Khoury: T6-24 to -48. Westbrook was the other area. They have successfully argued that the area makes sense for successional zoning. It's close to transit. It's close to a lot of high dentity [sic]. It makes perfect sense. The thing is that there's a -- we have set up -- we don't -- as you heard, WASA water requirements, park requirements, the City needs to make sure, before you upzone an entire area, that, one, the quadrants surround it have been studied, and we haven't heard from the quadrants -- from the residents that live on the west side of that how they feel about that area being upzoned. There is, in your Code, a special area plan that is intended to address this exact issue, and we also believe that if there were to be a change in capacity, there should be a benefit to the City as well. You have this public benefits program where we don't think an entire area should -- at least not now. Is it an area that should be upzoned? Possibly, but we all feel that the time is right now. The successional zoning should happen later on, especially when the other quadrants have been studied, and there should be also a -- which is one thing we're advocating for -- there should be a public benefit to the City when you upzone such a huge area, and then the notice requirement is the other thing that we've spent a lot of time working on. We've heard from many residents that they felt that the notification requirements weren't sufficient, and as I said, I'm hopeful -- maybe being an eternal optimist -- that our Code will address a lot of the anxiety people feel, but in the interim, that has -- we -- been addressed. We'll wait for them to see what we've written and hear back from them and hope that that's sufficient, and I would just end by saying, you know, where we were going to really implicate to see if the east code can be -- the east quadrant can be adopted while the other code -- other quadrants are being studied specifically because we feel we need to test the Code, and also because people in the east quadrant have been waiting a long time, and there's an anxiety about projects that are getting implemented -- your existing Code is deficient; we all know it. What we're proposing we also believe is much better. We would love to see that implemented and adhered to while we're studying the other quadrants, so now I'll be happy to answer your questions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Before we do that, could we have the Administration ready to answer any questions that any of the Commissioners may have? And I know there are certain questions that are going to be directed towards the Administration, so having said that, Commissioner Sarnoff, you're recognized. Commissioner Sarnoff: I take it that the reasons we're doing a Miami 21 is that there are, obviously, problems with the present Code. Those problems, I take it, are predominantly large buildings abutting or adjoining low-rise R-1/R-2 neighborhoods, correct? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: And it's your opinion that you've put in some transitions to stop what 37 June 21, 2007 we see happening -- especially in your district -- on Coral Way, which abuts a neighborhood, a very low-rise residential neighborhood, correct? Ms. Khoury: Yes. We've put in not only the adjustments and the additional setbacks in the rear and the side, but we're also requiring that parking garages be lined, especially when they're adjacent to single-family homes. Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, let's talk about parking because when I first got involved in this -- and I think you've modified it to a large degree -- you were, I call it, social engineering us to one car per family, correct? Ms. Khoury: Yeah. On your recommendation, we did increase that in the T6 to 1.5. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK, in the T6? Ms. Khoury: In the T6. The T5 have two parking spaces per unit, which is what your Code currently has. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK, so we're now up to a 1.5? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: And what I've heard from some of the architects is that as a result of your floor plates, it's very difficult for them to get adequate parking because you require them to go in at a certain point, and I think you -- if I heard you correctly, you went from 15 stories to 18 stories. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. The floor plates are 15,000 square feet in the lower T6s, and 18 for residential in the upper, but I think what you're referring to is the fact that we're trying to restrict the parking -- we're not trying to -- we're saying that we have an eight -story pedestal, and we're hoping that the parking gets restricted to that because there's an additional setback at the eighth floor, an additional ten -foot setback for the towers. We have -- we heard from the architects that they felt that was too constraining, especially on the substandard depths of lots, Edgewater being a good example of that, so we've waived that setback for those areas with the hope that the parking doesn't go 17 stories up or, you know, as we're seeing in some areas. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, as a result of the 1.5 cars per building, that will require a larger parking deck, correct, than what you had originally envisioned? Ms. Khoury: Well, we did not do our development conversion changes based on what our new code required. We did them based on what the existing code required, so the one and a half parking spaces doesn't, in any way, impact what the FLR is because that was already taken into consideration. Commissioner Sarnoff But as a result of you require -- as a result of your code -- let me put it to you like this. Your code essentially is -- the intent behind it is to bring in more light and more air. 38 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: Fair enough? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: By requiring buildings to no longer go straight up, but to go in, in, and in. I think there's three -- Ms. Khoury: Two. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- just two ins? OK, two innies [sic], not three innies [sic], and again, your purpose and point behind that is to allow those of us that can't afford to live directly on the water to have some air and some sunlight, hopefully? Ms. Khoury: There's many reasons for it. I mean, one of them is to allow people who work within those buildings to have access to natural daylight within a certain distance. For green buildings, we're hearing from around the country floor plates are being reduced in size. For example, Vancouver -- and I know that's an exceptional example -- even though it was voted the most livable city in the city [sic], they limit their floor -- their residential floor plate to 7,000 square feet. We would have loved to do that, but we heard loud and clear from the architects they didn't want to be that restrictive, so we've increased that, but to a point where we want to be able to let natural daylight come in, and we also wanted to control the -- to allow light into the streets so that it doesn't -- you don't get this canyon feel, which is the reason why we established this eight -story pedestal with the idea that you further set back an additional ten feet, and then allow the towers to raise from there. Commissioner Sarnoff And -- but that's what I want to -- and I want to see the competition here because I'm the guy that's saying I think everybody has one and a half cars. I don't know how you drive half a car, but I'm the guy that believes there's one and a half cars out there. You're the people that are saying you need this -- at least two movements in; that restricts your floor plate. Have you provided adequate --? Because what I'm understanding from a number of the architects that -- when you consider the mechanical, the elevators, the space that you cannot use to sell a building, and you consider that you need this parking, that you've really restricted the usable parts of the building, and it seems to be a question that's across-the-board, whether it's an architect I know or an architect I don't know. How would you respond to that? Ms. Khoury: Well, we have -- just to be -- just to clarify, we have one setback. There's the front setback for the pedestal, which is ten feet, which is -- which replaces the open space requirement in order to get wider sidewalks, and then the pedestal goes up -- straight up. There's no additional setback until you get to the eighth floor -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. Ms. Khoury: -- so the parking can fit within that eight -story pedestal. We are requiring liners -- 39 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: All right. Stop right there. How do you know -- Ms. Khoury: OK. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- it can fit within that eight -story pedestal? Ms. Khoury: No. Well, it can go above and beyond the eight -story -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. For instance -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and I know there's an attorney sitting back there. Where is she? Ms. Khoury: Of the many. Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, I remember approving a building, I think, that had 14 stories of parking. Ms. Khoury: Yes. Yeah, and I -- yeah. I've seen some that -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. Ms. Khoury: -- go up 17. We're not saying the parking has to be restricted to the eight stories. Commissioner Sarnoff I understand, but once you go in with the setback, you're then putting parking on smaller floor plates, correct? Ms. Khoury: What we're trying to -- yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: I get dizzy -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- driving, so I want to know if I'm going to get even -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- dizzier on a smaller floor plate. I want to make sure that -- I'm the guy screaming at you 1.5 cars. Now I want to know that I'm being reasonable or unreasonable -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- because once you do your first inward move, I'm putting that car on a smaller floor plate -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. 40 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and then they should be yelling at me, hey, Commissioner, not only are you doing that, but with all this mechanical, you've just built the world's thinnest building with two apartments up there. Ms. Khoury: Yeah, but we don't know if -- we've seen studies that show that people won't drive more than ten -- will reluctantly, very reluctantly, drive more than ten stories, and those that are going 14 and 17, at least the ones I've seen, are -- a lot of them are mechanical parking. We -- there's a couple of ways we're addressing that. The first one is, we're allowing parking to be provided off -site. We're also saying if you provide -- which is a huge incentive if you provide parking un -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Stop right there, off -site parking. I like that, because I also heard you say that T5, there should be no parking underground, and here -- Ms. Khoury: Oh, no. Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me say -- Ms. Khoury: No, no, I didn't say that. Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, I wrote that down, and I'm not as good as he is, but -- Ms. Khoury: Oh, no. On the contrary, we would love to see it under -- Commissioner Sarnoff: You want parking underground. Ms. Khoury: Because it frees up the building to be any other use but parking. Commissioner Sarnoff: So are you talking about -- I actually got it completely wrong then, so let me see if I can regroup real quick. Then you're saying you want underground parking in T5, and would that be subterranean? I'd still have five levels of residential? Ms. Khoury: Yeah. What we're doing is we're really trying to encourage underground parking, and again, I can use the city of Vancouver, where all the developers said it's not possible to do underground because we're by the water until the city said, you know what? If you provide it underground, it doesn't count as your FLR, and we gave them the incentive to do it, then they all started to do it, so in T5 and T6, we're saying you can provide parking underground, and your huge incentive is that you could use the additional capacity or square footage to use as office space, or affordable housing, or residential, or whatever you want it to be, so that the ability to provide it underground, it doesn't count as your FLR. There's also the ability to provide it off - site within a certain distance, and we've -- Commissioner Sarnoff: All right. Stop there, off -site. Talk to me about that. Ms. Khoury: Well, we've heard from a lot of T5 property owners, especially on small properties, that providing the parking there is too much of a burden for the restoration of the 41 June 21, 2007 building, and so we just want to ease it up a little bit and say, you know, if you can provide parking within a certain radius -- and I've not -- I'm not exactly sure what that is. Maybe Francisco can be looking it up as we talk because it varies from T5 to T6. It's just another way to say -- it's another way to loosen it up and say, yes, the parking has to be provided, we understand, but we want to give you many ways in which you can do that. Commissioner Sarnoff: How far have you learned through any city that people will walk on a day like today, where it's -- I don't know, is it raining out there? Anybody know? Ms. Khoury: Well, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK. It's raining out there, and your wife -- husband and wife, maybe a child, and she's getting home from her job at 6 or 7 at night, and she's got some grocery bags. How far will she walk from a parking garage to her house or her home? Ms. Khoury: You know, I would say, look at Miami Beach. I have all my -- half of my colleagues live on Miami Beach, and they -- when the urbanism is there and when the -- and it's interesting, and when there are shaded trees, people will walk a long distance. I mean, half of my colleagues park their cars on Miami Beach, and the entire weekend, they don't get back into their cars. It would be great to provide that, at least, to have an incentive for that in -- within the City of Miami. Commissioner Sarnoff: But you haven't done a study. You're just using anecdotal evidence or - -? Ms. Khoury: Have we done --? Well, there are studies that show that within 1,300 feet on average, people are more likely to -- which is a five-minute walk -- walk than they are to drive, so that radius comes from years and years and years of planning -- Commissioner Sarnoff: But my -- Ms. Khoury: -- studies. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I think -- I don't want to talk past you, and I want to make sure that -- I, at least, want to know that there's substantial evidence to support what you're saying because I wish it -- I hope it is true. Ms. Khoury: It is true. I mean, I -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, let me ask the question because what -- I understand people will walk. My question to you is will they walk with bags of groceries? Ms. Khoury: Yeah, they will walk with bags of groceries. Commissioner Sarnoff: And you have evidence to that effect? Ms. Khoury: Yeah, we do. I mean, I can -- I will find evidence for you and forward it to you. I 42 June 21, 2007 mean, I don't know them off the top of my head, but I know there's many studies that have been done for that. Commissioner Sarnoff: I came from Brooklyn, and my grandmother -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Well, there you go. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- had -- well, it was different back then. I mean, she actually put the grocery bags in that great, big wheelie thing -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- they had back then and wheeled it. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: I don't know that people here are accustomed to that, but I want to know that you've at least studied and looked at it, and you believe that when you build all these buildings and it doesn't have parking in the building, that somebody who spent, I don't know, five, six hundred thousand dollars on a home is willing to walk five minutes with grocery bags. Ms. Khoury: Yes, and I think that the environment within the City of Miami -- you know, the public frontages and the commercial and/or retail at grade will go a long way towards making that a pleasant experience. Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me ask you a couple of other question. You're pretty -- we're pretty much done with parking, I guess. As you're going to present this to us, you're presenting what you believe to be, from an architectural standpoint, the way the City of Miami should look -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- correct? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: As this book stands right now, this is your expertise as to how the City of Miami should look -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- in terms of numbers, codes, et cetera? And then, of course, it becomes up to us to decide, based on constituent concerns and complaints, how we modify that, but this is your best expertise? Ms. Khoury: Yes. That's our best professional judgment, and we're very happy with where it is right now. 43 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: Right, and you have modified this with 22 pages worth of modifications Ms. Khoury: Yeah. We've had -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- yet -- let me finish -- but yet, you're still satisfied that, from a professional urban planning standpoint, those 22 pages of modifications were worth modifying, correct? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: Then you, at least, concede that when you did your first draft, which was right here, that you didn't exactly get it right, correct? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Well, you know, it's not as simple as that. It's not about getting it right. It's about -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Nothing about -- Ms. Khoury: -- getting -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- this is simple. Ms. Khoury: No, and it's about -- it's an incredibly complex task, as you well know. Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. Ms. Khoury: It's -- and the vast majority -- and it's not a defensive answer, but the vast majority of the amendments have been tweaks. We've had extensive meetings with a lot -- a number of architects from the AIA, and they've made a lot of good recommendations, and a lot of them had to do with the actual building of the high-rises, so -- yes, it's not -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, yeah -- Ms. Khoury: -- not everything was in the Code the first time around. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK, and when you say "tweak," there -- to me, there're two kinds of tweaks; one is three stories next to my home, which might be more than a tweak to me, or to a developer, could mean 30, $40 million -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- so a tweak is a lot. Ms. Khoury: Yeah -- no, and we're aware of that. Have there been substantive changes to the Code? One of them, for example, one of the most substantive has been a change of FLR for the down -- for the CBD (Central Business District) to 30. That's a substantive change. We wanted 44 June 21, 2007 the public benefit to kick in earlier than -- right now, if you're in the downtown area, you don't have to -- you have unlimited FAR. All the others don't have unlimited FAR, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff: FLR. Ms. Khoury: F -- yes, FAR under the current, now the new FLR. We had established the FLR at 24, trying to encourage the City to be a little more aggressive in seeking public benefits. The City wanted us to treat the downtown the way we've treated every other district or transect zone, which is to say your as -of -right is your base FLR, and then everything above that, you have to pay into, and since the downtown has an unlimited FAR, their existing FAR, we set that -- we maxed out the floor plate, took it up, and said at what point do you reach -- take it up to as high as you can go, once you max out the floor plate, and that gave us an FLR of 30, which is how we -- that -- so that's a substantive change because that's significant. Commissioner Sarnoff: And where did you start at? What was your FLR when you --? Ms. Khoury: Twenty-four. Commissioner Sarnoff: And you maxed it to 30, you said? Ms. Khoury: We -- to 30 -- what it means is that they'll pay into the public benefits program a little later on. Commissioner Sarnoff Later, right, which also goes with your social engineering, which is to put people downtown? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff OK. Talk to me about warrants. Being a lawyer, I've always been concerned with that word. Ms. Khoury: Well, if you look at -- if you open Article 4, Table 3, you'll see certain -- most uses -- or a lot of uses are allowed by right, and there are certain uses that might be allowed by warrant. If I can get the Code, I might give you a good example of one, and when you see a warrant, it means that the City -- it's an administrative review because, for example, if you have a community residence that has state regulations attached to it, the City has to review it in order to make sure that you're also complying with the state regulations, so anything that has additional regulations attached to it by either state or county would be approved by warrant. Commissioner Sarnoff: Now warrants are only with uses, correct? Ms. Khoury: Only with uses -- Commissioner Sarnoff: OK. Ms. Khoury: -- as are exceptions. 45 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: As are exceptions? Ms. Khoury: Yes, and then there's waivers, which are -- for example, you're allowed to waive a setback requirement. You're allowed to -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Well -- Ms. Khoury: -- well, there's a bunch of waivers. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- go through the warrant process, just on an example, so I understand what due process is afforded. Ms. Khoury: I might ask Nancy to -- or Lourdes, or Ana to address this. They'll be able to address it more technically than I can. Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me give you a scenario. Supposing I wanted to put a temple right in an R-1 neighborhood, which I guess would be called a T3. Ms. Khoury: Three. Well, the first thing you'd have to do is know that temple is a religious facility, and you would see that it's not allowed by warrant. It's only allowed by exception, which means it'd have to go through a public hearing. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK. Ms. Khoury: Now a warrant -- or what you could do, for example, is put -- here's a perfect example. If you go through civil support and infrastructure and utilities. FP&L (Florida Power & Light), certain companies are allowed to put their stuff wherever they want, basically, and so that's approved by warrant. It means the City has to review it and make sure that it -- at least it's complying with what their regulations are. Community residences are another one because they have state regulations that are approved by warrant. Commissioner Sarnoff: Supposing I wanted to put a child care center or an old age facility, or something like that, what would I be going through? Ms. Khoury: You'd be going -- community residence, you'll be going through a warrant -- Commissioner Sarnoff: A warrant. Ms. Khoury: -- process. Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: All right, so I would then apply to the City, and somebody like Lourdes would review it -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- correct? And her word would be final? 46 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: Yeah. There's a -- the -- whose word is final, Ana? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. I -- Ms. Slazyk: The Planning director. Ms. Khoury: OK. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It goes through the -- Commissioner Sarnoff: All right, so Orlando, so we can all get mad at him. Ms. Slazyk: No, Ana. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. You would get mad at me. Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, Ana, you, OK -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: You would get mad at me. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and what right would the citizen have to say I don't want this child care center next to me? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It would be appealable to the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK, and just for my colleagues, that is now a unified board, Planning, Zoning -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and Appeals? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It's one board, yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: Right, so there's no longer a Planning Board, there's no longer -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No, it's not. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- a Zoning Board; it's Planning, Zoning, and Appeals -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Correct. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and then, I take it, from there you could then inevitably go to the City Commission? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. What we are -- 47 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: You could not? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- proposing is that -- Commissioner Regalado: Goes to court. Commissioner Sarnoff: Wow. That's good for lawyers. I mean -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. It's great for lawyer, but not for people. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: What we're proposing, it's appealable to the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board. If they appeal the decision of the Planning and Zoning, it would go to court. Commissioner Sarnoff: All right, so then there is no appeal to the Commission? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No, not on waivers, not on warrants. They are on exceptions and on waivers, and obviously -- Commissioner Sarnoff: What -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- any zoning change comes to you. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- is your thinking in terms of taking an issue, for instance, like an old age home or assisted living facility and not allowing a citizen to have the ability to come to the Commission, but forcing them to hire a lawyer? Why would you do that? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We were trying to streamline the process, and what we were trying to do -- which it goes back to the beginning of the presentation, of doing a code that was predictable. We were putting on Article 4, as Marina was pointing out, what was allowed or not allowed. The use is allowed, and when we say warrant, it's just because the use may have something about it, like when you mentioned child care. Well, it might be an issue of where the parking is, or where is the access, but it's not that the use is not allowed. If they couldn't abide by the rules, then it -- that's when the variance would kick in, so we felt that we were being clear as to this is the type of use; it's allowed by warrant. It would be a design review, if you will, depending on what the use, how it operates, but the use is allowed. That's what we felt, and it was a way of differentiating those uses that would have more of an impact, and that's why we decided that some had to be exceptions and some variances, and that's why it comes in with the public hearing, so it was one we felt merits and another one that the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board would suffice. Commissioner Regalado: If I may, just one second on the daycare thing. The City Commission has always had hearings on daycares, and people have prevailed, not only in not granting the possibility of building, but also on placing a lot of conditions, so that public process -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We have -- if I may, because I think -- and at the end -- as we said, we're proposing our recommendations. If it's something where you feel, well, we would like to be involved, that's a policy decision, but just to clarify, particularly, on the child care. We have 48 June 21, 2007 eliminated child care from res -- from single-family residentials [sic] and duplexes because we have felt that that has been an issue in the neighborhoods. Right now, in Zoning Ordinance 11000, child care is allowed on R-1, and what we have heard from residents -- and I know you've heard it too -- is that they feel it's a commercial intrusion, so what we did with this Code is that use is not allowed, so we will have child cares -- the ones that we see here, where people have problems with the daycare and the parking, or commercial use, we are eliminating it. On a T4 R, which is your three-story building, that's the first time that you actually can apply, and it's by exception, so it would be a public hearing, so again, if appealable, it would come to you, so the time -- and then we have warrant, meaning it's also design review, on the upper ones because we understand that it has been -- but I just want to clarify, on single family and duplex, that use is no longer allowed. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. We've gone through -- we went through, just in terms of the uses, all the uses that the City had, and we really -- what is approved by warrant is really those uses that we felt are completely compatible with single-family or residential uses. Commissioner Sarnoff: What criteria do you use to determine that it's completely compatible with a residential community? Ms. Khoury: Well, it's a combination of things. The first one is that we've heard -- there's a history in the City; they know what people object to and don't object to. There's also the fact that what the form -based codes do is restrict the size and the use. If -- for example, if you're in a T4, you can only do it on the first story. By definition, it can only fit a certain size and a certain square footage. They have parking restrictions that can only be a certain size, and so that gave us great comfort in knowing that it wouldn't be so noxious, and the residential, if you go down the Rs, you'll see that very, very few uses are allowed. It's in the Ls and Os, which are principally, either the corridors or the downtown areas, where we felt that a lot should be allowed that have these Ws, and if it was, in any way, problematic, we gave it an "E," so that it would have to go through a public review process, and if your current code required that it go through an exception, then that was also a reason to give it an -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Visit -- Ms. Khoury: -- that use. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- with me for a moment then, if you would, on the exception process, or I guess you call it -- Ms. Khoury: It's exception process. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- exception process. Now we're getting into the actual building itself, right? Ms. Khoury: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, by the way, before we leave use, have you changed the definition -- you're no longer going to have characteristic of use? 49 June 21, 2007 Ms. Slazyk: The -- Ms. Khoury: We're hoping -- Ms. Slazyk: -- characteristics of use exist for -- in the nonconformity section. Commissioner Sarnoff: And you're going to maintain that? Ms. Slazyk: We're going to maintain that. Commissioner Sarnoff: Why are we the only city in Florida that has a characteristic of use? Ms. Slazyk: Well, there are a lot of things that really don't fall into use or structure, and those things were lumped together historically in the City as characteristics of use. In the absence of that, there would be a lot of case -by -case interpretation as to whether something that we now call characteristic is a use or part of the structure, and I think, without going into all the different types of characteristics and clearly defining them, the characteristic of use catches that. Commissioner Sarnoff: But that's the problem. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: You've used it as a catch-all. Ms. Slazyk: But in some -- Commissioner Sarnoff: The City has historically used characteristic of use -- well, they didn't have their certificate of use for three years, so let me call it a characteristic of use. Ms. Slazyk: The characteristic of use is anything that was lawfully permitted that's not use or structure, but it was legal. Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. Ms. Slazyk: It had its permits; it was absolutely lawful, and because of a change in the Code, is no longer lawful. Commissioner Sarnoff: But have you -- Ms. Khoury: It's just a -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- read the definition? Ms. Slazyk: But it's -- Ms. Khoury: -- confusing term. 50 June 21, 2007 Ms. Slazyk: -- that makes it a nonconformity. Ms. Khoury: It's a confusing term. Commissioner Sarnoff: Have -- Ms. Slazyk: That makes it a nonconform -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- you read the definition of characteristic of use in our Code? Ms. Slazyk: I don't have it with me right now. I -- Commissioner Sarnoff: I do. Ms. Khoury: Commissioner Sarnoff, this is one we actually agree with you on, and we would love to see it changed to element of design -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Well -- Ms. Khoury: -- or something like that, and we will work with the City -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- it's three sentences, and it doesn't say -- no -- Ms. Khoury: I know. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- disrespect, Lourdes -- Ms. Slazyk: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- anything -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- of what you say it says. Ms. Slazyk: I didn't write it, so I won't take any offense. Commissioner Sarnoff: Well -- Ms. Khoury: Well -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- it's very -- Ms. Slazyk: We just administer -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- clear -- 51 June 21, 2007 Ms. Slazyk: -- it, yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- what it says. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: It says parking -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- it says landscape. Now how you interpret that to a use, you know, I take it somebody that's unskilled in law can do that, but now's the time to get it right, and now's the time not to carry forward the baggage of somebody getting up there and saying, well, we've done it like that for 30 years in the City of Miami. We've done a lot of things for 30 years in the City of Miami wrong, and this is a good chance, if you're going to build a clean slate, to wipe that slate clean and say this is a new code. Ms. Slazyk: Right. There are concerns about things that don't -- again, don't fall into use or struc -- locations of driveways. You know, whether -- when we change from 9500 to 11000, and now to Miami 21, the rules change, but if you had a permit for your single-family home, and you have your driveway in a certain location, and now, all of a sudden, it's not allowed that way under a new code, and you want to come in and make changes to your driveway, what do I call that, a use or a structure? Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, why don't you --? Ms. Slazyk: It doesn't fall into either one. Commissioner Sarnoff: No. I understand what you're saying, but why don't you just be honest with the code and say -- Ms. Slazyk: We can be clearer. I agree. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- subsection B, whatever the Zoning Administrator decides the characteristic of use is today -- Ms. Khoury: Or we could do -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- because that's what you're saying. Ms. Slazyk: Or try to hone in on what those definitions are. Commissioner Sarnoff: Or list them out, correct -- Ms. Slazyk: List them out, and there are -- 52 June 21, 2007 Commissioner Sarnoff: -- but what you're doing is your bastardizing -- Ms. Slazyk: -- a lot of things. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- three sentences, and you're saying, look, this is the way we've done it for the past 30 years; let's continue to do it, and what you're doing is you're relying upon somebody's bad reading of a -- of three sentences over the past 20 years. I'm just suggesting now's the time to get it right. Ms. Slazyk: Right. I think -- that's not exactly how we do it. If the portion that's nonconforming isn't a use or a structure, then it's a characteristic, if it was lawful. If it was legal, if it was permitted, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff: I know how you -- Ms. Slazyk: -- but I agree with you. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I know how you're interpreting -- Ms. Slazyk: I agree with you. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- it, Lourdes. I'm just saying -- Ms. Slazyk: I agree. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- what the three sentences say. Ms. Slazyk: I agree that it should probably be -- we should hone -- Commissioner Sarnoff: And some day, a judge may -- Ms. Slazyk: -- in on a -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- read those -- Ms. Slazyk: -- clarification. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- three sentences, and -- Ms. Slazyk: I -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- that -- he or she could say -- Ms. Slazyk: -- read them. I just didn't have it in front of me right now. OK. Commissioner Sarnoff: I can get it, if you want. 53 June 21, 2007 Ms. Slazyk: No. I -- Ms. Khoury: We have it here. Ms. Slazyk: It's OK. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK. Ms. Khoury: We're recommending that it be called element of design, which I think would go a long way towards alleviating the idea of a non -- the terminology of non -characteristic of use, so we're hoping we can come to an agreement on that. Commissioner Sarnoff: OK. I've taken a lot of time. Does anybody want to ask any other questions? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I do. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get to my questioning on the workshop, I do have a list of questions that Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones has provided. As you know, she is sick, and she is home recuperating, and we certainly wish her -- she gets well soon so she could be back with us. The question that she has proffered in writing, I will put in the records, and I'll read them. Bear with me here. Some of the classifications in part of the SD-5, I believe, will have an impact on some pending affordable housing projects. The Commissioner does not recall seeing any exceptions or grandfather provision accepting such projects. Are they [sic] any such exceptions for affordable housing projects pending? And that is one of the questions that I had pertaining to affordable housing. Can someone answer that question for her? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Could you repeat the question? If there's affordable --? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think her concern is on affordable housing projects, and she doesn't recall seeing any exception or grandfather provision accepting such projects. Are they [sic] any such exceptions for affordable housing projects pending under Miami 21? I believe that's her question. Ms. Khoury: Well, SD-5 is east Brickell. I'm actually confused by the question. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, the question is basically, she's asking affordable housing questions pertaining to that quadrant. Chairman Gonzalez: The question is if they are grandfathered in. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Maybe -- 54 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: Are there -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- I'm not sure if I'm -- if this is the answer, but let me -- what provisions would we be making? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let's -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We -- let's see -- Ms. Khoury: Oh, I think I know. Maybe she means T5 instead of SD-5. That would make sense. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. The -- in the T5, where -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It says D5. It could be -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- T5. It's not mine. Ms. Khoury: T5. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think it's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, T5. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- T5 and -- Ms. Khoury: Yeah, so we have addressed that. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- D1. What we have added is if you are a T5 who's abutting a D1, which is the industrial, you would be able to have one more story added if you do affordable housing, but it would have to be affordable housing, and it would have to be on -site. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Maybe that's what Commissioner -- Ms. Khoury: Yes -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- Spence -Jones is referring to -- Ms. Slazyk: -- because we addressed this with her. That's what she meant. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and yes, we've added it. We've included that. 55 June 21, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff: That's a T5 next to a D1. Ms. Khoury: Yes -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Khoury: -- not indus -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Only. Ms. Khoury: -- light indus -- yes. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, and I'll explain why. At the beginning of this process, we had the T5, and when we were considering where to put the public benefits, there was a concern because you could go that extra height and the predictability, again, of those neighborhoods that were brought abutting the T5 that may be T4s or single family, or presently duplex, that they had a concern that now they could have yet one more story, so we eliminated the public benefits to only apply to T6. In this process and hearing about the issue with the affordable housing, we felt, well, if you're at T5 abutting a D1 -- so the context and the scale is -- we're talking about in volume -- pretty much the same, and it's not really affecting the lower rise, which were our issue. That's where we said, well, we could include that -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Just illustrate -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- condition. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- what a D1 is again. Ms. Khoury: Light workplace. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Light industrial. Ms. Khoury: It's light -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Light -- Ms. Khoury: -- workplace. Commissioner Sarnoff: Who? Ms. Khoury: Light workplace -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Light workplace. Ms. Khoury: -- so it's about -- light industrial, but also cheaper commercial space and/or office 56 June 21, 2007 space. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It would be the uses that you have industrial and general commercial -- Ms. Khoury: Art galleries, those kind of uses. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- warehousing. Commissioner Sarnoff: What is it? Warehouses? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Khoury: Warehousing, art galleries, office buildings. It's the most permissive transect zone in the sense that it allows for the most -- the greater variety of uses. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I could see why she's asked that because it affects her district on - Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that. All right. She's also got a question pertaining to the PAB approved adoption of Miami 21 provided the affordable housing component be strengthening [sic]. How has the Planning Department strengthened the affordable housing component? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: How have you strengthed [sic] the affordable housing component? How have you strengthened it? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well, what we have done -- and it's part of the public benefits -- we've added the -- through the public benefits, it's the affordable housing, and we've added the new thing from when it went to PAB was the T5 availability of going one more story if you're putting affordable housing. Ms. Khoury: And there was also additional changes that were made. There's a -- the Affordable Housing Trust Fund that's being -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Through the public benefits. Ms. Khoury: -- established. We heard -- the PAB -- members say that they wanted to see anything from 50 to 80 percent of the public benefits funds transferred to the affordable housing. I think the City -- and we feel that that's a decision that should be made by the Commission with it -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There -- 57 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: -- for you all to decide within your own -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- was a -- Ms. Khoury: -- districts. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Following on what Marina was saying, there was a discussion at the PAB, and there were some percentages that were -- when some of the public would say, you know, we would like not 50/50, but 80/20 -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Where is it now? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and we clarify -- Commissioner Sarnoff: Where is it now? I apol -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: That was part of the conversation with the Planning -- Commissioner Sarnoff: No, I know, but where is it now? As the Code -- Ms. Khoury: Article -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. At the -- Ms. Khoury: -- 3. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- what we said was that that was not our decision. That was a policy decision by the Commissioners where the money went -- Commissioner Sarnoff: It's just left for us, right? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- so the money goes to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's a policy issue. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- the public benefits, and you, Commissioners, decide where the money's going. That's not our decision, and that's why we try -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- explaining that we did not want to put a percentage; that was the Commissioners' responsibility. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well -- Ms. Slazyk: It all goes into one trust fund, and then the Commission would decide how to spend 58 June 21, 2007 it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the issue here is -- and I had questions pertaining to this too. I think the biggest concern that we had here was the affordable housing and how it was going to be affected through this whole concept, so we wanted to make sure that there was no impact to it and wanted to make sure -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that those funds -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- we would like to say that it's probably going to be more -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- because what we have -- presently, we have affordable housing, which is the twelve some dollars, but the planning -- planned unit development that we have bonuses is free. What we're saying is now for any bonus, if you want for development capacity or height, you would have to pay, so we would be considering that now you're paying for the equivalent to two, which right now you pay for one, so we see the public benefits that the amount of funding would be increased, and the decision of where it goes is yours. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, and the follow-up question to that is what was the rationale governing how much the bonuses percentage would be? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The percentage of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: How did we determine --? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- the affordable -- I mean -- let me -- affordable versus -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Affordable housing, the bonus. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- open space? Vice Chairman Sanchez: On the bonus. Unidentified Speaker: How much bonus you (INAUDIBLE). Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The -- how much. Ms. Khoury: Oh. That's something I could -- well -- Unidentified Speaker: I think that's yours. Ms. Khoury: -- yes. Right now, the City has -- you have an existing FAR, and then you have a maximum bonus FAR under your current Code, and so we looked at that number -- for example, 59 June 21, 2007 you might have an FAR of 6 and a -- when you max it out, it gets to 8.4. I'm just throwing out numbers. The same way we went through the calculations to give the people the same as -of - right capacity, we did the same thing for their maximum bonus to be able to give them their maximum benefit in order to not increase a development capacity -- getting into intensities and densities -- to give people basically what they currently have right now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And the last question is, the bonuses for T6-48 states unlimited. What does unlimited mean? And it's -- and it relates to the bonus percentage. Ms. Khoury: Unlimited basically means -- that's the only zoning district that has the unlimited. We tried to do away with it everywhere else, and it basically means wherever the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) establishes the height limits because there are limits established by the FAA. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. That concludes her questions, and now I'm going to address this; that I am glad that we did have this workshop. It gives us an opportunity, under the Sunshine, to have five Commissioners, in this case, four, to be able to address such an important element of the future of the City of Miami. Let me just state that this is an ambitious proposal -- we all know that -- and it's also one that's very -- a complex task for us to take. Noticing the input from the Commissioners and going to some of the public hearings that we had -- and we sure -- we've had plenty public hearing -- I think that -- I believe that we don't disagree with the plan. I think that we disagree with certain elements of the plan, and some elements of the plan in itself need to be addressed, and we need to be very prudent how we handle this because, yes, we are changing our zoning laws that are going to have an effect on the future of the City, but let me remind each and every one of us here that this is based on public's request for us to find a way to rewrite our zoning laws that, at one time, were very vague, at one time, were very misunderstanding -- it was very complicated for people to understand exactly what were the rules and the laws set forth in our Code, so we needed to simplify the process. When you see what's happening here, the last thing that we want to do is we want to violate anybody's rights, whether it's a citizen, whether it's a developer. We need to work together to make sure that when we do have a final product -- and we don't have, as I stated before, a half-baked cake, where we do sit down and we analyze the whole process in itself, and we're able to finally vote on the issue, and this issue is basically going to affect all. I don't want to get into the issues about a rich city and a poor city. I think we are one city, and we need to address this to benefit the entire city because the future of this planet itself really focuses on a lot of things that we have not focused well in the past; transportation, pedestrian -friendly, parks, so it has a variety of things that we need to make sure that when it's done, it's done right. I do have some questions, and one of them was the affordable trust fund, but when you focus on this concept in itself -- and I'm sure there are a lot of questions to be answered -- I had one that was very concerning to me. We talked about parking. There's no definition of low income for parking waivers, and I think you need to elaborate a little bit on that as to where we stand on that. Ms. Khoury: I think we have. In Article 6 -- Ana, correct me if I'm wrong, or Lourdes -- there is a parking reduction for low-income family housing, if you go to the supplemental regulations. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just -- 60 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: I -- we did put that in. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- if you give me -- I mean, this is a workshop. If you give me exactly -- I mean -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I have all these amendments, and I will read this [sic] amendments. I know that they're in the book, and this -- Ms. Khoury: No. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- is just basically for us to simplify the process so we could read the amendments, but if you give me where it's at -- Ms. Khoury: Yes, I will give it to you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I will be more than happy to read that. Ms. Slazyk: Section 6.7.1, there are parking reductions for elderly housing and for low-income families and individuals, which is your affordable housing. Ms. Khoury: And that was in the Code since March, so you won't see it in the amendments; you'd see it in the original document. Ms. Slazyk: In the actual Code, yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, and on the East Quadrant Miami 21 Atlas that I'm looking at, one of the questions I think that we need to ask, and although it's the first quadrant and it's going to have a triggering effect on the other quadrant as we start working on them, is that I want to make sure that a lot of these neighborhoods, these -- the historical neighborhoods, these neighborhoods that really make the character of our city are well protected, and as I see here, I want you to elaborate on them as they are -- it's the T -- is it a T3 or T --? Yeah, it's T3 -- Ms. Khoury: T3. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- right? Ms. Khoury: Um -hum. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Before -- elaborate on that as to the transition into those neighborhoods. Ms. Khoury: OK, so currently, the way you have it right now, you have a lot of T3 s -- R- l s, let's say, your current -- your single-family homes adjacent to C-1, which, in theory, have unlimited height. 61 June 21, 2007 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right. Ms. Khoury: What we've said is there's a different -- many ways to address this. In many cases, there's -- when applicable, and not -- if we're only dealing with the historic neighborhoods, and I'll say we gave them a buffer zone. For example -- and a good example is Buena Vista, next to the Design District. The Design District has unlimited height everywhere. It's zoned SD-8. We said that the first row of houses behind there are zoned T4; the second row would be zoned T5, so it transitions gradually up, and then once you're three blocks removed from the Design District -- from the historic neighborhood, it gets a T6 zoning. Now that's possible in places like the Design District. In other places, Biscayne Boulevard, for example, immediately abutting -- or when you have a corridor with the historic neighborhoods immediately abutting it, we've addressed it in different ways also. Up and along the boulevard, there are some places where it's T4, some places where it's T5. Where it is T6, there's additional rear and setback -- and side setbacks, so there's an -- once you've gone up to a T4 height, so one extra height than what the single-family homes have, you have to set back 20 feet. You can go up to five stories, and then you have -- if you have a T6-8, you have to set back another 20 feet, and then keep on going up, and you have to do that if you have a T3 property on your side and/or if you have a T3 property in your rear, so it's in the -- so it's part of dealing with that transition. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And in your recommendations -- and you are the expert on this -- that you're providing to us, you feel that that is the best protection towards those neighborhoods against -- Ms. Khoury: Yes. We've -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- intrusion? Ms. Khoury: -- had to balance the needs of the development capacity of those properties with the desires of the neighborhoods to not only have a more predictable height, but also to have something that transitions to their property. The only -- the other thing we did is that we removed -- we don't allow the benefit heights in the T6s if they're immediately adjacent to T3, so if you're a T6-8, which is what the C-1 buildings are, and you're adjacent to T3, you cannot bonus up to 12 stories. You can only bonus up if you're adjacent to T4 and above. Commissioner Sarnoff: How could a T6 be next to a T3? Ms. Khoury: Well, Biscayne Boulevard's an example of that, where you have the single-family neighborhoods abutting right up to a C-1 corridor, so where you see the C-1s, the T6-8 is next to T3 s, it will not go up -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Khoury: -- to 12 stories. It would be restricted to eight. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I think that's going to be an important factor, not just on this quadrant, but throughout the City -- 62 June 21, 2007 Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to make sure that these residential areas are protected. Ms. Khoury: Yeah, and we did -- we were sensitive to that, and we've done studies to show that the parking can work, that the building footprint is going to be wide enough that it can work, so it's not -- you know, it's -- it required a lot of study for it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Another question that I have: Will the parks impact fee be eliminated when the parks include in public benefit under Miami 21? Ms. Khoury: Ana. Parks impact fee. Ms. Slazyk: No. There's no proposal to -- because, remember, the public benefits, it's an optional -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It's voluntary. Ms. Slazyk: -- thing. Somebody -- you know, you may not opt into the public benefits program, but the -- there's no discussions that I've heard of of removing or eliminating any impact fees. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: Impact fees are required of everyone, but the benefits is optional. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, let me make a suggestion, as this workshop is about providing ideas and providing suggestions and comments that may, you know, find solution to problems that -- with this plan. I think there're maybe three or four elements of this plan in it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) self I think are what we need to address ourselves to try to find a solution to. They've already been addressed for the record. I think whether it allows us an opportunity when it comes down to a vote, or whether there's going to be more public input, and maybe there'll be more amendments added to this list or this article, that's -- that'll be determined, but I do think that the process in itself, I want to make sure that it is a prudent process where we -- we're very careful how we handle this because I think the first quadrant, which is basically the largest quadrant, the quadrant that we really need to focus on because that's basically our economic engine of the City. We need to make sure that it's done right. We need to make sure that if there are challenges, that we -- and I -- this is maybe a legal question -- that we -- those challenges -- that we get a clear understanding from our attorneys that those challenge are defendable in court because the last thing that I want to do is, of course, violate anybody's right as a developer, property owner, or a citizen. Of course, always protecting the City, making sure that the City -- we do everything we can to not put the liability on the City, as we speak, but having said that, I think this workshop was very productive. I think that it gives us an opportunity now to sit back with the Administration and focus on those elements that are the elements that I think that we need to address. Look, it's not written in stone. Once -- if it does pass or does not pass, it is not written in stone. It could be amended. I think this is maybe -- when it's all said and done, I still have some concerns with it. It may be a step in the right direction, but it's not written in stone. I mean, we are the policymaker. A lot of the issues that 63 June 21, 2007 we're discuss here, we could amend them. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We could set forth and proffer ideas that'll be added onto this, and whether it's the process in itself, whether it's some of the language, whether it's the implementation, that's up to us to decide, and of course, it'll be done through a Commission meeting that will require a second reading, but it's -- it gives us an opportunity to help craft this law that's going to affect us all in the long run if we don't do it right. Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Khoury: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Sarnoff, you're -- Commissioner Sarnoff: You know -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- recognized. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I'm glad we had this workshop, as well, but what we didn't hear from was the public, and what we didn't hear from is their attitude and their point of view, and what we really didn't hear from -- and I was hoping this would happen at the Urban Design [sic] Review Board -- would be from the architects themselves, from why they believe this is good, and why they believe this will inhibit or restrict their ability to design buildings because the one thing you have to say about the City of Miami, we have some beautiful buildings, and you don't want to stop that type of enthusiasm, and you don't want to stop that type of architectural intrigue, so I'm going to keep a very open mind. I think there are certainly two sets of people you want to listen to -- well, maybe three sets; those that design the City of Miami that come before us pretty frequently that we've come to trust in terms of architects; those people that are holding property with the pure intent of selling that property, which is a perfectly valid point of view, but maybe not a very long-term point of view; and then I know what I want to do especially is listen to the citizens, those people who are going to live here and raise families here, and hopefully, have their kids raise families here and want to be here for a long, long time, and I think all three of those groups are who we need to listen to and keep a very, very open mind because we've been given one perspective -- and I don't mean that disrespectfully at all. It's a good perspective because there is a need out there. There's a problem. Otherwise, why would anybody have gone through what we've gone through? When I walked my neighborhood and I got to see 15- and 30-story buildings right next to somebody's home that wasn't even a two-story home, and he happened to have been a captain in the Fire Department, I was pretty horrified at the whole thing, and if this particular plan even addresses this, then I think that's -- I think, number one, just to address it, it's a great idea, whether they have the solution, fine; whether a solution comes out on the first reading, the second reading, or any of these readings -- because maybe we won't pass it this first time up, maybe we'll continue to work on it. I think we're addressing a very valid need. I just -- as you had said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure what we do is done with some forethought, some guidance, and a lot of citizen input because, really, everyone up here is supposed to be the steward for each one of you out there to make sure 64 June 21, 2007 that we protect your right not only to develop land, but your right to live here and make this a sustainable city, and if this plan makes this a sustainable city, then we need to consider that. We equally need to consider what we want our city to be in the future, and that -- this is a great opportunity for us to sit here and get in touch with our constituents and find out what they want, so I'm going to keep a very open mind, and I'd encourage everyone, big and small, thick and thin, to come here and tell us what's right with this and to tell us what's wrong with this. Every architect should come here and say this is a building I built two years ago. This is what this building would look like under Miami 21. This is what I'm proposing today, but this is what this building would look like under Miami 21. Now, you know, we're seeing a bunch of -- as far as I'm concerned, I'm looking at trigonometry, and you know, I gravitate towards the hearings, the notices, because I'm a lawyer. I mean, I understand that. When I start hearing the TC6s and the TC3s, and this can go over here, but it can't go over there -- what I wanted to -- what I was hoping for, by the time we got to this stage of this proceeding, was that I was going to understand what a building looked like under Miami 21 and what a building would have looked like without Miami 21. I was also hoping to see if somebody could have said, if you just changed the FARs and not have a gross FAR, would that have solved some of Miami' s problems? Was it a simple solution? And I just -- I bring this for the record just so that every one of you architects out there that's listening come to us and tell us what it would look like yesterday, what it would look like today, and what it'll look like tomorrow with Miami 21, and to every citizen, fight for your home; say what's right about it. Talk about zoning in progress. Tell us why we should pass this. Tell us why we should not pass this. Give us your perspective. Tell us what's right legally with it, and tell us what you think is wrong morally with it because that's what the hearing process is all about, and let me just caution my fellow Commissioners because I know the City Manager impressed this upon me. He said we can just pass this on first reading and fix it later. Wrong. Due process demands, due process requires that, on first reading, you are comfortable with what you're voting for because God forbid you step out of here and get hit by a bus. You don't know what the next Commissioner sitting in your seat is going to think at the second reading, so I really caution every one of us just don't pass it to get it on to the second reading, where we can fix it. Let's fix it right the first time, as the Chairman said, because every one of us is going to be looked at historically as that Commission. It's either going to be that Commission that got it right or that Commission that got it wrong. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if I may just add to that. I think we have to give credit where credit is due. I think the staff has done an incredible job of putting this together. This is -- once again, it's a very complicated issue. Public meetings -- I mean, we've had close to about 60 public meetings. I mean, I'm all for public meetings; let's have some more. The more, the merrier, but they've had plenty of public hearings in the district, so I think that when you talk about the staff and basically what they've done -- and listen, we may think that it's still half- baked and there's a lot of issues that we need to address and we're heading in the right direction because we believe that we need to rewrite our zoning codes. No one is disputing that fact, but I think that the staff has done a tremendous amount of work to try to get this to a point to bring it to the City to get it passed. I agree with you; we should not pass it on just first reading and say we'll take care of it in the future. It doesn't work that way. When it comes to us, it should be something that we have digested the beast and we know we are very familiar with it. Are we going to please everybody? Absolutely not. Are we going to try to please everybody? We're going to try, but you know, as -- when it gets to us, whenever that time comes, we're going to have to make that decision, and then, as I stated, it is not written in stone. It could come back, 65 June 21, 2007 and we could address it, and we could make modifications to it, but I think that we need to praise the staff for the job they've done, and not only briefing us on the issues, but also all the public hearings that they've had. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ana, maybe I was half asleep, but I sort of was watching the Planning Board, and the amendments have to come back to the Planning Board. The Planning Board requested some amendment, especially in notification issues and all that, right? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think the -- if the changes are -- if you take them and you approve them, those changes that are substantive would go back to PAB. If not, they would continue -- Commissioner Regalado: So -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and that's something that -- those changes and those list of amendments, we're working with the Legal Department on, and if they're substantive, they need to go back to the Planning Advisory Board. Commissioner Regalado: So your -- the way that it was expressed to the Planning Board is, when it's approved by the City Commission on first hearing, it will come back to you. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We didn't -- at the time, no, we did not. We -- we're taking it to Planning Advisory Board, where they recommended approval, and they were -- there were four conditions that they had placed, and they were conditions that changes would need to be made as to what's different -- notice, for example, that they wanted more, based on community input, so those things are the ones that we've gone through and the parts that are amendment, and like I said, we need to be clear. If there's things -- and that's why we're working closely with Legal -- that are substantive and need to go back, even if they recommend it, we will. Sometimes the conditions may not be substantive, it's just amendments to the Code that, if you approve them, then they would become part of the Code, so the differentiation is the substantive or not. Commissioner Regalado: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that when we meet next week, that the Administration is not hoping that we vote. I think we should meet and listen to the people and not vote. If we have to vote, I'm saying to the Administration, you better start lobbying four Commissioners because I'm voting no, and the reason I'm voting no to turn down Miami 21, if we need to vote, even on first reading, is because, to me, the public process have not been satisfy. Commissioner Sanchez said, well, there have been a lot of meetings, but if we look at the percentage of the people that attended the meeting in the first quadrant and multiply the whole city, which, by the way, we're coming back to the same story, it would be minimum. It would be an attack on the public discourse in the rest of the City of Miami, and that I cannot agree with. It would -- we need also to understand how would impact changing of the boards, where there is public debate, and once we approve that in first reading, well, then it's done. At least, we will have two cities functioning. We need to know about the notification process, but we also need to understand what is it that the people in Flagami, or Allapattah, or Shenandoah, or Silver Bluff do really think about Miami 21. I mean, we have this debate several month [sic] ago 66 June 21, 2007 when I started protesting because in Flagler and 69, people -- in Flagler and 69th Avenue, the people were calling our office saying, "What is Miami 21?" Because in all the bus shelters, "Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood, Miami 21." We have not have even one single meeting, or for that matter, piece of information in the rest of the City, so to me, it's a very easy decision, very easy decision. We don't satisfy the public process, I'm voting no if there is a need to have a vote. I mean, I remember -- I mean, the Chairman ask, "What is the rush?" I keep all the memos from the Manager. I remember that we voted on the baseball stadium, which is a big -ticket item, and we were told, before the end of April, we're going to have a signed contract with Major League Baseball, the Marlins, and April of what year, you ask? So you know, this is the city of deferrals. This is the city of let's wait because we have to look at some other thing, and I don't understand what is the need to rush Miami 21. Is it because you guys work by hour? Ms. Khoury: Oh, no. We've -- absolutely not. Commissioner Regalado: I mean, you know -- no, no, really, because I don't understand. I don't understand the rush. I don't understand why we're approving something that it will impact the whole city, and yet, the rest of the city has not been able to opine on this matter, so -- Ms. Khoury: Commissioner Regalado, can I just say -- Chairman Gonzalez: If you allow me -- Ms. Khoury: -- one thing, or --? Chairman Gonzalez: -- if you allow me -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I'm done, I'm done. Chairman Gonzalez: -- my position has been all along that I believe Miami 21 needs to come before this City Commission when all the Commissioners are ready to vote on Miami 21 because, like I said before, this is going to be affecting Commissioner Sarnoff district now, but within six months, or nine month [sic], or a year, it's going to be affecting your district, and then it's going to affect another district, and eventually, it's going to affect the entire City of Miami. That's why I believe that this needs to come before this Commission when all the Commissioners -- and that was the reason why I suggested that we had a workshop. You know, it doesn't make sense to have -- to begin with, if we're going to listen to Miami 21 on June 28, we'll have to set aside the entire agenda of June 28, all right? And I know what they're going to try to do. What they're going to try to do is try to push four meetings in July, OK? And then we have the budget coming up, and then we have -- so, you know, what -- one thing that I wouldn't like to do is to have a meeting for Miami 21, have, I don't know, maybe six hours of public input, seven hours of public input, plus the presentation, plus everything else, and then at the end, say, you know what? I'm not ready to vote on it. If that's the way the Commission feels about it, I mean, there's always a deferral. There's always a table the item. There's all -- there're options, but you know, we need to decide what the Commission wants to do with this item. Commissioner Regalado: No. I said it already. If we have to vote next week, I am voting no. 67 June 21, 2007 There's no way that you guys are going to convince me, so that's what I said. You're going to have to start lobbying other three members of the Commission because not until the public process is satisfied, not until this thing about having two different boards, one going that way, another going that way; not until we know how will the first quadrant impact, in essence -- not in details -- in the other district, at least in the area that I represent. How -- until I know that, I am not ready to vote. If I'm forced to vote, it's very simple. I'll just have like glass of water here, vote no, take a drink of water, and go home, and go to sleep; don't feel bad. I'm not going to be call a person that is opposing progress. I'm not going to be call a person that doesn't want to move forward into the 21 st century because the fact of the matter is that I do represent the people. I do not represent the attorneys. I do not represent the Administration. I do not -- I didn't mean you. I -- Commissioner Sarnoff: I didn't think you did. Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean, it's wrong. It's wrong to take away from the people the possibility of appealing in front of the people that they elected to represent them. It's wrong to tell the people you have to hire an attorney if you want to appeal some decision that the City made because some people may have the economic means to hire an attorney. Some people will have the blessing of having a pro bono attorney, neighborhood association, but some people don't even have the connection, nor even know an attorney; don't even have the money to hire -- and we have seen poor people here protesting. In fact, I think that someone who was sitting there next -- when -- during the museum discussion, someone from the public was trying to talk about the museum, and some of the people that were supporting the museum were talking, and someone said, "Welcome to Miami, where the peasants have a voice," and yes, yes, the peasants should have a voice. Yes, the poor people should have a voice. They don't have to -- they don't need to hire an attorney to appeal before the people that they elect, so because of all these things and because it's not going to be fix, live on the air, on June 28, that is my issue. I mean, don't worry about me. I'm voting no because I think that at least I'll be going down and losing, but sending a message that we need to get the people involve. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sarnoff: If I could just -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- say -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- Commissioner Sarnoff: -- one thing, Mr. Chairman, because -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I think it's important -- I've never been in a process yet where I've heard the citizens come up, or the architects come up, or the landowners, for that matter, come up and address this issue, so I am telling you right now, I'm going into this with an open mind, and I want to see -- I want to hear from the Nina West, the Barbara Bisnos. I want to hear from Chloe Keidash. I want to hear from Zyscovich. I want to hear from everybody what it is they 68 June 21, 2007 think, right or wrong, about this particular issue. I don't know that I'll vote that day. I can't tell you that I know what's going to happen. I can't tell you that someone's going to say something, gosh, I just didn't think of that; I didn't know that. I haven't heard, with all due respect, your response to that when they say, "He's got the formula all wrong," and you say, "And I could show you mathematically why." I mean, that's part of the process. Legislation is like making sausage. It's really ugly, but should be good to eat. Thanks. Ms. Khoury: Can I -- may I say one thing, or is it -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Khoury: -- possible? Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Khoury: Just a level of reassurance. The architects are tremendously important, and we have had many, many meetings with the architects who have been taking up our formulas and testing them for the past year, and we've had three that I can recall in the past few months, meetings just with the AIA to hash out a lot of these issues, and a lot of them are the -- are in the amendments, so it's not as if it hasn't -- we haven't addressed it -- Commissioner Sarnoff: No, but I -- Ms. Khoury: -- from the architects. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- haven't been there for it. Ms. Khoury: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff: I mean, nobody sitting here has -- you know, I don't know about you guys, but one of the most fun things I do is, when a MUSP comes to me, look at the picture. Chairman Gonzalez: Look at design. Commissioner Sarnoff: Because I mean, I'm not that abstract a thinker. I want to know what it - - this building, inevitably, is going to look like -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and you're asked to make my district -- I'm asked to make, on the average -- I think we're counting 11 MUSP applications every PZ (Planning & Zoning), and if you don't think the pictures help, you've got to be kidding. Now does that not mean we go through the data? Yes, but I want to get my mind around a Chloe Keidash who says, I agree with some of the things you have to say, you know, DPZ, but have you thought about this? Because this building on this piece of property would be too, you know -- 20 feet wide, and that would restrict us to one apartment. In which case I could say, maybe they don't have it right. That process has not occurred. You can go to any high school that you stick us in and you call it a 69 June 21, 2007 public hearing, and it is. I'm not saying, due respect, that it's not a public hearing. However, when you set up 11 or 15 stations, I didn't interact with those 11 to 15 stations. I didn't hear what all 11 to 15 stations had to say. Last night we had a Virginia Key master plan. I sat at table number 12. I also met a lot of the constituents, but I sat at table number 12. Do I know what table number 12 thinks? Yes. Do I know what table 1 through 14 thinks, excluding 12? No, but I was at a public hearing, so this is when it comes right to us, and this is when you have an expectation that you got it right when you voted for that person, or you got it wrong when you voted for that person. It's right here. It comes to us. It's a funnel. You know, this -- look at the way this chamber looks. It spreads out, and it comes to us in a series of five. This is our first chance to hear from everyone. You know, whether we vote or don't vote, it's a valid place. It's a -- Commissioner Regalado: It is. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- valid time -- Commissioner Regalado: I would love to hear. Commissioner Sarnoff: -- to hear it. That's all I have to say. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Have a good evening. Ms. Khoury: Thank you. There being no further business, the Miami 21 Workshop adjourned at 5:20 p.m. 70 June 21, 2007