Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal transcriptsGROVENOR CITY COMMISSION HEARING TRANSCRIPT (1) January 23, 2003 (2) February 27, 2003 (3) May 1, 2003 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR IT".'=1 62.T3ON 3-a7-o7 • GROVENOR CITY COMMISSION HEARING TRANSCRIPT January 23, 2003 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM__ON3;i01 , is your City, and how you carry out this very, very important task will mean an awful lot to the future of our City for a long, long time. So good luck and do a great job. [APPLAUSE] 56. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GROVENOR PROJECT AT 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO 5:30 P.M. DURING COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003; DEVELOPER TO MEET WITH AREA RESIDENTS AND BRING BACK MODIFIED, NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL. Chairman Winton: We have one last item on the entire agenda. I'd like to go back to the PZ agenda, which is PZ 4. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): For the record again, Lourdes Slazyk Planning and Zoning Department. PZ-4 is a major -use special permit for the Grovenor Project. It's going to be located at 2610 Tigertail Avenue. The project is to be comprised of a residential complex with 151 residential units and 409 parking spaces. This project was reviewed by the large-scale development committee and the Urban Development Review Board for additional input and recommendations to the Planning Director. Based on that input the department's recommendation is for approval with conditions. The conditions primarily have to do with the standard conditions that are in a major -use special permit with some additional design concerns that have been addressed through conditions in the development order. The design considerations that have been inserted as conditions in the development order, first one has to do with pedestrian circulation. It was felt that the pedestrian access to and from South Bayshore Drive was weak. It required -- the configuration wasn't a convenient access for pedestrians to be able to access Bayshore Drive. We feel that Bayshore Drive is an asset to Coconut Grove and there will be a lot of residents from this building who will want to walk on Bayshore Drive, get to the park and to other areas of the Grove and that should be enhanced somewhat. The other design consideration had to do with the tree disposition plan. The plan showed two mature oaks that were going to be transplanted in order to make way for the driveway. This action may result in the loss of those trees and another option to either redesign the driveway or find a way to retain the oaks should be considered by the applicant. The findings that have been made on this project are that the project is going to benefit the Coconut Grove area by creating new housing opportunities to serve the Grove. The project has convenient access to downtown area and makes it ideally 5e1these findings and the design considerations, we recommen I' t Chairman Winton: Lourdes, are you finished? PUBLIC RECORD FOR Ms. Slazyk: Yes. ITEM 1ON 3%4-07 Chairman Winton: OK, I'm sorry. We don't want to he here all night. Y'all don't want— tote --...• here all night. I don't want to be here all night. No one wants to be here all night so, process is, we're going to allow the applicant to begin this process. We will allow the opposing attorney and equal amount of time to the applicant and obviously each have a right of one cross 194 January 23, 2003 examination. We'll have a public hearing on this issue and a public hearing is going to be limited to two minutes per person and I hope that those of you who are coming from the public that we don't hear the same issue over and over again. Maybe one of you can say there's 10 of you and you can hold up your hand you know, you repeat the same thing but not repeat the same thing, so that we don't have to be here all night. Lucia, you're on. Lucia Dougherty: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the -- Chairman Winton: OK, hold on. We don't -- we have to swear in everyone who is going to testify so, we did that earlier but y'all weren't here for that so, Madam Clerk. AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Chairman Winton: OK, thank you, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant and joining me is my partner Adrienne Pardo and associate Gloria Velasquez and Zoning Consultant Rosario Kennedy. Also this evening I have with me Ugo Colombo, Bruce Whiner and their colleague Art Murphy who are principals in the ownership of the project. This development group you've heard of before because they have developed in Dade County and the City of Miami. Ugo Colombo only develops very high -end luxury condominiums. He has a sterling reputation for quality development both in the City as I say and in Dade County. In the City of Miami he has developed the Bristol Tower as well as the Santa Maria Projects. The reputation is not only for quality development but also timeless architecture. The architect for this project is the same one for the Bristol Tower and the Santa Maria the icon Marino Grand in Miami Beach and the Portavita in Dade County, that is Luis Revuelta and you'll be hearing from him in a minute. They have a reputation also for being sensitive to their immediate neighbors. You may recall during the Santa Maria Project there was a lot of opposition from our neighbors. We resolved those neighborhood disputes and the neighbors were very supportive of this project during its construction and before. Likewise we've done the same thing today. We have in fact, have agreements with our immediate neighbors to the north and to the south, the Grove Hill Condominium Association as well as the SBF Towers. With respect to this project it's located in a GI (government/institutional) zone and you may recall this property is formerly the naval reserve property, and you may also recall the dispute that there was on this property dealing with the McKinney Act. That was a time when there was a homeless assistance center going to be placed on this property. That is totally consistent with the GI use, and you're going to hear today our opposition say that the project that we're proposing is inconsistent with the GI use. I just want to remind you that these are the same folks who came back then and said that they did not want this homeless assistance center which is and I think undisputedly consistent with the GI use. Development Group here, this development group has owned this property for three years, and during this entire period of time they had been looking land studying this property for the exact right project being sensitive to the Coconut Grove as well as the neighbors. Again, I tell you it's a high -end luxury condominium and these are the qualifications that need to happen for that to occur. They need to have see -through units and we have other condominiums in Coconut SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMON 3,v7a,. 195 January 23, 2003 Grove, recently built, that don't have see -through units, and I can tell you, the back units are not sold. Everything else is sold that faces the water, the back units don't sell, so that's one of the criteria. We also have to have generous floor to ceiling heights and large units, that's our criteria. We have 150 units on this entire site. This is very, very low density. We could have 490 units so, it's very, very large units for this high -end condominium developer. Again, I want to tell you a little bit of history about this particular project. We started three years ago, we first brought in a 40-story building that was very thin and narrow. The Planning Department looked at it and through their internal design process and said, "Are you kidding? This is not in the context of Coconut Grove. You can't go that high." So, we redesigned the project and brought in the building, went through the design review process. We went to the Urban Development Review Board and have a building that all of the planning staff for the City and the Urban Development Review Board agree is contextual and consistent with the development in Bayshore Drive. We then filed our major -use special permit. After that, we met with the Grove Hill Homeowners Association and the unit owners were very concerned about the views from their building. So, what did we do? We completely redesigned the project again, taking into consideration the views of our neighbors and redesigned it. Pushed the building back. Pushed the building away from the neighbors and having it at an angle. Then what'd we do? We met with the Tree -Man Trust. The Tree -Man Trust said, "We're concerned about the trees in the rear of the property on Tigertail. There are several oak trees and we'd like you to redesign the project to save those oak trees," and I forgot to mention, the other concern about the Grove Hill Home Association is they wanted the trees preserved that are on our property adjacent to their property line. So, they wanted us -- and you'll see that huge ficus tree, so we redesigned to meet their concerns regarding those trees. So, Mr. Colombo said, " Alright what we're going to do is we're going to move our garage away from Tigertail." We had an underground garage so, it's totally imperceptible from Tigertail but we're going to move that garage, the underground garage back to preserve those trees. That means we had to go from 191 units down to 152 units so, we lost units in order to preserve the trees. Again, we do not have a formal written contract with the Tree -Man Trust at this time but we have agreed to all of the conditions that they want. We have offered a letter to them and we will offer a letter to you and to the City staff to put as conditions the preservation of the trees that they were concerned with including the two trees that Lourdes mentioned in the front, the two live oak trees. We will redesign the driveway to accommodate the preservation of those two trees. Then what happened? We then met with our SBF neighbors, our neighbors immediately to the North. They said, "We don't like the way you've treated our views. We'd like you to move the building back on that side as well." So, we completely redesigned the building again to meet the concerns of our neighbors of SBF. So this is the forth time that we redesigned the building in order to meet the concerns of our neighbors. And we are very disappointed today frankly that we don't have a total consensus of the community. It just seems that we can't make everybody happy in the community. We've done everything that we can to be sensitive to those neighbors who are immediately affected, those to our North and those to our South. I'd like to -- and we have letters of support from the Grove Hill Homeowners Association as well as the FBF Towers, Santiago Echemendia was here this afternoon but he had to catch a plane so I'm going to ask my associate Gloria Velasquez to read that letter from Santiago. Gloria Velasquez: Dear Board Members. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PO:.(1/; ON 3f+-o-7, 196 January 23, 2003 Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Excuse me. Ms. Velasquez, for the record, please identify yourself. Ms. Velasquez: Gloria Velasquez Law Offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. "Dear Board Members, subject to Grovenor House compliance with the terms of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) settlement agreement dated December 16, 2002, by and between Grovenor and Rattio (phonetic) holdings Rattio as owner of the building at 2601 South Bayshore Drive supports the revised major -use special permit application which Grovenor has filed for the property located on South Bayshore Drive with the street address of 2610 Tigertail Avenue as reflected in the revised plans filed with the City of Miami on November 27, 2002. Sincerely, insignia ESG, Agent for Rattio Holdings, Richard Heidelburger." I'm going to submit this for the record and I'm also going to submit the letter from the Grove Hills Condominium Association also supporting the project. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Just -- the letters of support are not really relevant for these preceding. If the applicant wants to submit those, have them placed into the record then the applicant may do so but I don't think it's really good use of your time to have them read into the record or so forth. Your decision should not be based on who's in favor and who's not in favor. Ms. Dougherty: This property, and I think we're going to hear from our opposition. The property should be developed in accordance with the SD-17 regulations. The SD-17 regulations are applicable to the properties on the north and south of us. Well, it could be done, but I want you to know the two properties to the north and south do not comply with the current SD-17 regulations. They're both taller than that which would be permitted today. But nevertheless, it could be developed under the SD-17 regulations and you could have 490 units without any variances, a seven -story parking garage in the rear and a 22 story building. You won't have Florida ceiling heights that we have of nine feet and above. You won't have see -through units. You won't have large units and you won't have Ugo Colombo as the developer of this quality project. It won't be him. It could be somebody else and we're not here to say that this is a threat by any means at all, that's not the point. The point is, this is driven by the marketplace. That's what he does, luxury condominiums. We're not making these rules up. This is what he does and this is what he does well and this is what is necessary for these kinds of projects. The project in fact and you'll see from Luis Revuelta's presentation, does not create a wall on Bayshore. It actually flares off of Bayshore. The building flares back to meet and accommodate our neighbors. It's a chevron shape. The setback from Bayshore Drive is 137 feet at the closest point to Bayshore. Near our neighbors it's actually 165 feet. We will exceed that which is required by code and we will exceed that which our neighbors have as setbacks. A setback from Tigertail is 125 feet to the garage. Now, the garage is only 18 feet tall, it's less than a single- family home. The actually construction of the tower is 305 feet from Tigertail, that's a whole football field away from Tigertail and there is no, by the way, vehicular entrance on Tigertail. I like at this time Luis Revuelta who is the architect -- no. I'm going to have Taft Bradshaw actually start so he can show you the site plan. He's our landscape architect and then I'm going to have Luis Revuelta, the architect, to describe the architecture and then Tim Plummer, our traffic engineer, speak. Taft Bradshaw: For the record my name is Taft Bradshaw, of Bradshaw and Gil landscape architects, offices located at 4337 Seagate Drive, Lauderdale By the Sea. Good evening and SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR BEM a ''' ON 3 ?,+ 0-7 197 January 23, 2003 thank you for the opportunity to share this project with you. From the very beginning the landscape and the sensitivity of the existing environment has been of paramount importance to us. We have met with the Tree -Man Trust on several times. We've taken all their concerns at heart and we have what I refer to, we've responded, so our plan has become a responding plan. It responds not only to the issues that occur on Tigertail, but also to the individual tree preservation as well as tree location plan. OK, I think the best way and the most efficient -- Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, sir. I think we've lost quorum momentarily. Could you hold for a moment? Mr. Bradshaw: Sure. Mr. Maxwell: OK, he's back. We have quorum now, you may continue. Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you very much. I'd also like to introduce my associate who has worked very closely on this Robert Hault. Between the two of us we have worked very diligently in preparing these plans and the plans that have been submitted to the City and the different civic groups that we've met with. For orientation purposes this is Tigertail right here, Bayshore there. Right here in this location here is the Grove Hill the office building is right there. As our very first plan and first submission had the following, the trees that's in these dark green are the trees that will be preserved. We have preserved great majority of the trees whenever possible and also enhanced this in creating native hammocks. At one time we had two tennis courts in here and the recommendation and studying to the client we recommended that we can get one tennis court without removing any of the trees in this area and preserving these. He agreed. The Tigertail, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Tigertail there's an existing rubble stonewall which is quite nice but it's in bad repair at certain points. One of the concerns was could we preserve and keep that and just eliminate any motor transportation, vehicular transportation, and only keep a small pedestrian link from which the residents could use, go out and come in. We agreed to that. We've also detailed a very extensive tree relocation plan, which is in the documents in which we have worked with the Tree -Man Trust on. The two issues that the Planning Department recommended and what we have achieved was the preservation of these two big oak trees right here. Those two trees are big twin live oak trees. In the light here you can see it a little better. Bobby, do you mind holding that for me? These two threes right here, so we did extensive redesign, worked around these trees, worked with advise of the arborist and we think that we have a very good solution by welling around these trees and the drive splits on either side. It's a good solution and we worked very closely with the Tree -Man Trust and appreciate their comment. They were very kind and very generous to us in our meetings so we felt like that we've established the intent and exceeded the direction that we first started in the preservation of the trees in the site. We are very conscious of the character, the vegetation character of Coconut Grove and especially Bayshore Drive. I've practiced here for over 45 years and can assure you that I've done a great deal of projects in the Grove and I understand the vegetation types and the type of landscaping that is indigenous to the Grove. In addition to that, we have submitted a complete detailed planting plan in great excess to the City and also to the Tree -Man Trust and to our neighbors on the condominium to the south. We feel like we've been exercised good stewardship in the preservation of these trees. The development of a very indigenous site plan. The proposed landscaping is certainly very friendly and very tropical in nature, which is the SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM2-ON 198 January 23, 2003 character of Coconut Grove. We've had extensive opportunities to work with Mr. Colombo on his other projects. We has similar conditions on Biscayne Boulevard as far as the preservation of wilds and oak stone issues and preservation of trees. He has a good track record with that. We enjoy a nice reputation for our work and we feel like we've exceeded and met the criteria that would be required from an environmental point of view. I thank you and if I have further question, I'd be happy to answer them. Mr. Maxwell: Could you please identify the poster that you've been making that presentation from for the record, please. Mr. Bradshaw: These trees right here, the big oak trees in the front -- Mr. Maxwell: Please identify -- Chairman Winton: No, the poster itself. Mr. Maxwell: -- For the record what they are. What this poster was you want just reading from. Mr. Bradshaw: OK, OK. The two live oaks that identified on the tree relocation plans as numbers 56 and 57, which was prepared by a typographical engineer -- Mr. Maxwell: No, no. I need him to identify for the record -- Mr. Bradshaw: I'm sorry. Chairman Winton: Hold on. Mr. Bradshaw: I misunderstood you. Chairman Winton: Excuse me, hold on. Mr. Maxwell: -- what document you been using. Mr. Bradshaw: This is the proposed site plan for the entire site, illustrated site plan and garden plan. Mr. Maxwell: And the other one? Mr. Bradshaw: It's dated revised date January 22nd of 03 and revisions on that was in response to the Planning Department which are these trees here. Mr. Maxwell: And the other poster? Mr. Bradshaw: The other diagram, this poster here with -- Mr. Maxwell: The one that you were showing the Commission. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMItIe; ON 3-.V7-0. 199 January 23, 2003 Mr. Bradshaw: Is also part of the application and it was dated, let me get into some light here, last date -- it was submitted November 27th 02. Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Could I ask all of the presenters if you are using any exhibits to please identify those exhibits for the record and when you point out specifics to the Commission you need to identify what you are talking about because the record when you say this tree or here, none of that shows up in the record. Mr. Bradshaw: OK. Mr. Maxwell: So, you need to be specific. Mr. Bradshaw: For clarification purposes the trees that I'd referred to in presentation were the two live oaks located on the plans as submitted on the tree disposition plan as live oak trees number 58 and 57. Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes sir. Following Taft is Luis Revuelta who is the architect. Luis Revuelta: Good evening my name is Luis Revuelta -- Chairman Winton: Speak in the -- Luis, speak into the microphone please. Mr. Revuelta: My name is Luis Revuelta with offices at 2560 Southwest 27th Avenue. I want to go briefly and explain the project and a little bit of the history. I hope tonight I can demonstrate to you that the method that we have used to site and design this building is what I believe is the best possible option for this site. The design process usually starts with the architect and the developer and the staff and we look at the property, we look at the product and in reality the real force of the design eventually becomes the buyer of these units and the brokers that are representing them. That is what we have found over the years to be the driving force of the designs that we do for the different developers. Our client as you know, it's a developer of luxury residential and we did study different options and different massing possibilities for this site. The two basic options of massing for this site is either north -south or an east -west orientation. Once you look at those two options, they reflect directly into two different types of product. An east -west orientation, which is the way we have the building sited, it's more typical and necessary for a luxury condominium. A north -south orientation basically what it does, it changes automatically the product. It forces the developer to go to either a rental product or a not a luxury condominium product. This units obviously, normally are smaller and the density of the site is bigger, so the final decision was to site the building and to follow what we have been doing for the years, which is a luxury condominium with this orientation. The massing of SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 200 ITEM;' ON a m'ri_+ January 23, 2003 the building, once we make that decision, is basically determined by the size of the units that are necessary and the modules of this unit inside. We have to have living rooms, we have to have bedrooms and certain spaces that are certain with -- that are necessary for this type of product. The -- once we had a design in place we went to the City and like Lucia mentioned before, we had meeting with staff and the building was approximately 40 stories in height. We were told that we had to go back to the drawing board. We began to redesign the building. Once we had a building that was lower and the building that you will be seeing tonight will be a 31-story building. It was designed in this fashion. It was a rectangular building on the east -west axis, and it was about 80 feet from Bayshore Drive and it was a substantial amount of space behind it, much more than the three hundred and some feet that we have now. Again, the idea was that this building was contextually was better put between the two existing buildings and closer to Ocean Drive and as far as possible as Tigertail. Once we had basically a consensus with staff, we went to the neighbors and began to meet with the neighbors. What happened was that the neighbors said this building is too far forward towards Bayshore Drive, you got to push it back. We then went ahead to push it back to about 105 feet. Met with the neighbors, not far enough you're still blocking our views. We pushed the building further back to about a hundred and sixty something feet and the response was basically the same, not far enough. At that point we said, if we continue to push this building back we're going to end up way behind the office building or we're going to be very close to Tigertail so, we decided to flip the building. We took the design that we had and flipped it completely. At that point, we were providing as land here to try to open up the views from the traffic and the pedestrian closest to the building. That's why we have the slope on the opposite direction and we changed that orientation. At that point they said, that's good, but you've got to push it back, so we went ahead and we pushed it further back to a point about 170 feet at this point from Bayshore, and it's ninety something feet from the east end. Then we started discussing about trees and access and we talked about how we are providing all of our service access here next to the service access for the office building. Our entrance is here and only our exit was here and how we were eliminating all traffic from pedestrian and vehicular was important from Tigertail. At that point we also start meeting with the Tree -Man Trust and trying to do whatever we could in terms of the design to save as many trees as possible. We shrank the pedestal, we moved it away from Tigertail. We eliminated a tennis court. We eliminated a pavilion to save some important notes in the back and we did some changes also in the front. That point we then met with our neighbors to the east, SBS, and they said, that's great, this doesn't work for us. You're blocking our views, we said OK, went back. At that point other than jumping in the bay, I said why don't we also slope the building on that side? So, we basically took the building that we had on that side and replicated the design on the other side. Again, we redesigned the building to take that into account. At that point -- Commissioner Sanchez: How many times did you redesign it? Mr. Revuelta: I have lost count but I have basically shown you as a synopsis of the major redesigns that we have had. In terms to work with staff, work with the different boards and work with the neighbors. I don't know the minor redesigns how many there are but essentially there has been like six or seven designs that we have done in terms of pushing the building back. Similarly, I will show you for example, the building originally was -- and we have some pictures here, was slanted on one side so that the part closest to Grove Hill was the lowest part and the part closest to the office building was the highest part. We have a rendering of that. Once we SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM la , 201 January 23, 2003 did all those changes, the top of the building was not making sense so that took a major redesign of the roof because the building that you're going to see here today slopes away from the center down towards the office building and towards Grove Hill. So, the elevation and the massing of the building also change not only the shape, not only the location of the site, it effected the pedestal. We had to reduce the amount of units because we were reducing the pedestal. We were -- and I'll explain that briefly when I go through the project, we are sinking this parking garage about one and a half levels and it's only one and a half levels that are coming up because the side is sloping. We're just shoving it in the ground. You will not be able to see a parking garage here. We're going to heavily landscape the back of it obviously, the top of it, the front of it. We're preserving as many trees as we can and we're going to try to plant as many trees as we can on the sides. So, you'll see in the renderings that in terms of landscaping, it's going to be substantial and we're trying to save as many as we can from the existing ones. What you're seeing here is the site plan. That is the final version of what you are seeing. There is actually an additional change that we have made to react to staff desire to have a greater pedestrian effort or symbolism or functional relationship between Bayshore and the building. We have added a pedestrian walkway down next to the guardhouse that comes down and this is -- this case that you are seeing here in black and white so, we have two ways of coming down from the building down to Bayshore for people to walk. One is a ramp that kind of meanders around the front and then comes down and one is a ramp that takes you to the guardhouse to address issues of accessibility and then a series of steps. So, we've also, staff explained, have redesigned the driveway to save the two trees 56 and 57 there and it's going to be challenging but the slopes are going to be difficult but we have done that. That's basically a little bit of the history of the redesign. The building that you are seeing here today is a building that has three levels of parking of which one and a half are underground. The entrance of the building is on this side and the service entrance is on this side. We have a queen trellis to screen part of the entrance. Most of our service area is inside the building under this part. You're driving up if you're a visitor or a guest into this plaza and you're getting out this way and the entrance to the garage, and we have a glass canopy similar to the ones that we have used in the buildings that we've done on Brickell. The building right now sits about 170 feet from Bayshore at it's biggest point and 137 feet at it's closest point. It's three hundred and something feet, three hundred and five and our pedestal is about 126 feet from Bayshore. Originally we had a basement that went all the way to the property line and we were landscaping the pedestal because of the changes we have to make in pushing the building back. We eliminated this also to save the trees so all that is ground, existing ground of trees to be preserved, trees to be relocated, planted and a tennis court that we're going to try to fit somewhere between the trees. The building essentially at that point has a lobby, a mezzanine, which opens up to the plaza. It's going to be landscaped with a swimming pool and then you have essentially a typical floor that is six units per floor. The previous concept had eight units per floor, which was eliminated again because we had to eliminate parking and when we had to go to the redesign we felt that at this point that the six units per floor was the best possible design. As I said before, the modules of this element of each unit is essential to make a luxury building work and be sold to these buyers that are really are the driving force of the design of the building. In some cases, we are less than the minimum required for this type of luxury building, but this is what we had to work with so, we had to do the best we could. You have basically four units per floor up to the level 23 and on level 24 I mean, six units per floor on level 24 you go to 4 units per floor. You have three level of that and these are the elevations. We have three levels with four units per floor then you have three levels SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLICRECORD FOR 202 January 23, 2003 ITEM,L';oN3-97 with two units per floor and then the last two levels are two units, which are two story units. By doing this, we could have done a flat top building and brought the height down of this building. Both me and my client felt that it was, and staff, that it was substantially more contextually correct, interesting to the skyline to step the building. This design is very expensive, not easy to achieve but it does create a relationship and a context to the buildings next door that this drops into this buildings and in my opinion is going to create a very interesting building for the skyline. I think it's substantially better than just do a flat top building. I would regret it if I had to end up with that kind of a design. We've gone to a lot of trouble to try to create interest and you will see that on the renderings to achieve that. The other thing that we have done is we've broken the building facade, as you can see, in elements that you have saw in the plan. This balcony is going to shift and recreate a different shadow line so the building facade will be broken and this vertical elements will help to do that as well as we have done the same thing in the back, so not only the fact that the building slopes like a V shape, but it has this breaks in the facade. It helps cut down on the length of the building. It's something that we have done in the past. We did in the Santa Maria. It looks like you're looking at three different buildings all together rather and one single building. So, this is the view from the north that you're looking at. These are the side elevations that you have in your package with a little bit of color. We have a section here that I'm not going to go into it basically explain the building. We have two context studies. One was done by the neighbors, and one was done by us. This is the one that was done by the neighbors. The only liberty that we took was to take these two buildings and use the same colors that the center building was submitted this was done in black and this one in white and I thought that the context was not -- or the drawing was not properly done. That way so we just use the same color and through these meetings we keep hearing that this building is not within context and we are obviously arguing about different points. I just don't see it. Even when I looked at their drawing, I don't see this building to be out of context. Our drawing, which is the one that you have in our package, doesn't have color, but it basically shows the same thing, that this building steps down -- Chairman Winton: We can't see anything there. That's a blank piece of paper. Mr. Revuelta: All right I don't -- you have your glasses? Chairman Winton: It's not my glasses, it's the light. You don't have dark enough print on that so, move it over to where there's light over here. Mr. Maxwell: And identify it please. Chairman Winton: Over here. Mr. Revuelta: It's like -- Chairman Winton: Look where -- turn right there. There's light. Mr. Revuelta: It's actually the same context study that you have in your package it's just blown up to a larger scale. And it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) showing you light, it's half light -- SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM'ON 3-4T-67, 203 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yeah, right. Mr. Revuelta: You may want to move it to your right. Chairman Winton: There you go. Mr. Revuelta: We went ahead and prepared three dimensional graphics because I feel that reality is not expressed in a drawing like this or even a drawing like this that I'm showing to you. You do not see buildings in a straight elevation unless you are sitting somewhere far away and just sitting there for half an hour looking at the building. You see life in three dimensions. As you drive up and down Brickell, whether you're driving or your walking, you have a series of buildings that are narrow, perpendicular to the water because of the nature of the size that there were developed on. When you come to the Santa Maria site, which is a wide site, the building breaks, you see light, you don't see anymore wall after wall after wall. The reason for that is we didn't ask for any variances. We did the building as per code but by shifting the building because we had a wider site. The pedestrian that is walking and that's when you see a building most of the time. If you're walking or driving you seeing something for a few seconds or minutes and you are not seeing on straight elevations and I have not been able sometimes to be able to explain that correctly to different groups but when you see an elevation like this it just doesn't make any sense to me. This is just something that static and not reality. Reality is in my opinion something like this. When you're going up and down the street, when you're walking or driving, this is the kind of thing that you will see in reality. This building because it's being pushed, back is going to look almost the same height as the office building. If you are on the opposite side, again because the building is pushed back, the proportions change just because perspective. It is just the way you see reality. So you can see in this graphic here there is substantial light and air between the two buildings. You're going to hear comments that say the building is ten feet from the property line. Well, the building is ten feet from the property line but there is a heck of a lot of space between these two buildings and if you were to take a different approach a development on this site and you put a building perpendicular on the north and south axis, with units looking directly into these buildings, it would impact more the pedestrian and the driver on Tigertail more so than on Bayshore Drive because what they will see is the wall. It's the wall that you see on Brickell Avenue, building after building after building. So, I have no doubt that the massing and the location for this site for this, and the building product because of the density that it has, is be best possible solution, so that's essentially the story of the building and the pictures so, I thank you for your time and I'll be available for questions. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Lucia, anything else? Ms. Dougherty: Tim Plummer. Tim Plummer: For the record, Tim Plummer with offices at 1750 Ponce De Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables, Florida. Let me start by saying that this is one of my easier assignments. I usually get tougher assignments than this, but high -end luxury condominiums are very low generators of traffic, especially at 150 units. When you look at what can be put on this site with 490 apartment units that's much greater traffic. We went to the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) traffic study SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 2°4 ITEM ON January 23, 2003 process with the City and the City's consultant reviewed and approved our methodology, went through our analyses looking at a few of the roadway links and signalized intersections. They all meet level of service standards and our study has been reviewed by the City's consultant and -- Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty, maybe I missed it. Mr. Plummer did you identify what your specialty is? Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry. My specialty is -- Mr. Maxwell: You're testifying as an expert. Aren't you? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: I think you should put that on the record. Mr. Plummer: I'll start again. Tim Plummer with David Plummer and Associate, just my identification. Traffic engineer for the project with offices at 1751 Ponce De Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables, Florida. So again, our study has been reviewed and approved by not only City Staff but the City's consultant. All level of service standards are met for this project and the traffic impacts are fairly minimal. Thank you, I'll be here for any questions that you might have. Ms. Dougherty: We do have Tom Slothsburg from Darryl Sharpton and Brunson's Office who are Economic Development Impact but we are not going to put them on. So, with that we'd like to conclude and would reserve some time for rebuttal. While they're setting up I just want to mention that the zoning board approved this unanimously, the Planning Advisory Board voted in denial but it was a three to three tie. Chairman Winton: Tucker. Tucker Gibbs: If you could give me about one minute so that we may set up, I'd appreciate it. Chairman Winton: Tucker just for planning purposes, that went 38 minutes. Mr. Gibbs: I thought that was 40 that's great, thank you. Chairman Winton: Well, I started to round it up but I said you know, two minutes, two minutes. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. They ran up density in this City I mean, or is it ran it down? My name is Tucker Gibbs with offices at 215 Grand Avenue in Coconut Grove and I represent the Coconut Grove Civic Club and it's members and Gordon and Linda Eddie who live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive near to this project. Beginning, I'd like just to ask the people here who are in opposition to this application to stand up if they would. All those in opposition. I know. The SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM �', ON 3-aa_o7. 205 January 23, 2003 point is I just want to let you know how important this issue is to people who live in Coconut Grove. Remember we're not at Dinner Key. This is Manuel Artime Center and these people have driven here and just like and that's -- you know. Also I'd like those -- anyway my clients object to this application for four reasons. The residential project which is unrelated to any governmental or institutional use is not permitted in the government institutional zoning district and even if it was permitted it's too massive for this neighborhood. The developer also seeks to use two development bonuses that themselves are severely flawed and probably illegal. The developer also seeks to use a MUSP process that is impermissibly vague and with no clear objective criteria to guide this board in making its decision. We're not asking you to reject development on this site, we're asking you to reject this project in this government and institutional zoning district. What we want is development that is consistent with the existing zoning and land -use designations along South Bayshore Drive. Please remember that the zoning district on either side of this and all along South Bayshore Drive from Aviation Avenue to 27t Avenue is SD-17. SD-17 overlay that limits heights to 220 feet above South Bayshore Drive and limits the floor area ratio to 1.21. This building is 346 feet high and has a FAR of 1.72 with bonuses that add approximately 142,000 square feet to that side. Do you want to show the model? We've a model that shows this particular building and the actual bonuses. If you look at this model -- I'll wait -- if you look at this model the yellow portions, right here, that's a bonus and that's a bonus. This much of this building is square footage and density and square footage and FAR bonus. The top part right here is affordable housing. This part here relates to the PUD (planned unit development). This is the building, this is the building they believe is allowed as a matter of right at 1.72 FAR, however, remember, the surrounding zoning allows for an FAR that's even smaller than this, it's a one point two one. This residential district -- could you put the language of the comp plan up? -- This residential development is not permitted in the GI zoning district and I'll tell you why it's not permitted in the GI zoning district. Florida statutes states that all development shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. When seeking approval of a site plan or a development order and this major use special permit permits the development of land and therefore a development order. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the plan complies with the City's comprehensive plan. The City's comprehensive plan is clear. It says here major institutional public facilities transportation and utilities -- that is the land -use designation for this piece of property -- watch out it's falling. I made it big because I'd like you all to look at it tab one in the hand out that we presented to you. The last sentence in that provision is very important in the comp plan. It says, "Residential facilities ancillary to those uses, these uses," meaning the uses that a major institutional public facility transportation and utilities "are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to high -density multi -family residential, subject to the same limiting conditions." That's all it says. That's all it says. If you want a residential use on this property it needs to be ancillary. Nowhere else in this comprehensive plan does it say within this comprehensive land -use district that you can put in residential, unless it's ancillary. There's no other language in the comprehensive plan that expands on this, it's clear. Well, let's step back for a minute. This prohibition of non - government or institutional related residential uses makes sense. This is a governmental and institutional land -use, why is it a governmental and institutional land -use? History tells us that probably before there was a City of Miami this piece of property was owned by the federal government, The United States Government, a governmental use. What was the use on there that was government? It was a Coast Guard, part of the Coast Guard station, then it became part of the Naval Reserve Center, and the Feds owned that property and that's why it's zoned SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM;.;' ON 3 9-01, 206 January 23, 2003 government institutional. It's not zoned to allow somebody to take advantage of increased density and increased height to build a stand alone residential building. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: If this is true then why isn't this available under the federal law to be a homeless facility? Chairman Winton: It is. Mr. Gibbs: It is. Chairman Winton: It is available for -- Mr. Gibbs: It is allowed. Vice Chairman Teele: Excuse me, I'm trying to -- this property is still government owned? Chairman Winton: No. Mr. Gibbs: No, this property was sold by the federal government and purchased by Mr. -- I don't know who purchased it, but by the development team that's developing it. They own it and they want to development it in a nongovernmental way and that's our problem. Our problem isn't the development of this land, look at the GDC building, which is taller than what's allowed now under -- Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, well, I'm trying to understand a different issue. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: This City has a problem with homeless. Now, I thought that the rule was, that the federal law was, I didn't pass it, that governmental properties were to be available first for homeless facilities. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, you're talking about the McKinney Act. Vice Chairman Teele: Yes, I think that the McKinney Act. Mr. Maxwell: I think there were some amendments to that and I think that during the applicant's presentation Ms. Dougherty touched on that. She may want to directly respond to your question. It's how the McKinney Act relates to this specific piece of property but I believe that they have already -- McKinney Act has been amended to allow what they are asking. Ms. Dougherty. Vice Chairman Teele: To allow what? SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMTh ON'cr'. 207 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: So that they no longer have to first, they might have already -- that might have been addressed -- Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but it -- Mr. Maxwell: -- at one time -- Vice Chairman Teele: -- it would have been -- Mr. Maxwell: I know at one time there -- Vice Chairman Teele: The McKinney Act required that the local government Mr. Maxwell: It will be made available for homeless. Vice Chairman Teele: To the local government. Mr. Gibbs: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. Mr. Maxwell: No. In fact, I think there were bidders. I don't know what happened on that, Ms. Dougherty you can respond to that. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Back when the federal government owned this property the McKinney Act did require them -- Chairman Winton: Name. Ms. Dougherty: -- to make it available. Chairman Winton: Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: Name, please. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. The McKinney Act at that time, did require that the federal government make it available to a homeless assistant center and we had the same folks here who are saying this isn't consistent with the governmental use provision of your local zoning code making the same argument back then that they didn't want something that was consistent. Clearly, a homeless assistance center today would be consistent with your local government -- with you local zoning ordinance. Vice Chairman Teele: But, are you representing to me that this issue came before this Commission, I mean the commission -- SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM/'ON a ar7o7, 208 January 23, 2003 Ms. Dougherty: No. It never came before this Commission, but you do have a current -- Vice Chairman Teele: Wait, wait, wait. Ms. Dougherty: -- zoning designation of GI which government institutions. Vice Chairman Teele: What was your reference to the fact that there was opposition? Ms. Dougherty: Oh, back when the federal government owned the property and they were making it available to the homeless assistance center. These same folks -- Vice Chairman Teele: Well, hold it. Where's the record on that? Is this part of the record. Ms Dougherty: Where's the record? Vice Chairman Teele: Is this a part of the record? Ms. Dougherty: It's not only -- Vice Chairman Teele: I want it -- Ms. Dougherty: -- my testimony is a part of the record it was not a part of the record of this because now it's privately owned. Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but it has a lot to do with the issue that counsel over here is arguing. Because the issue is, whether or not it's an appropriate use, and to change the governmental designation and if there was in fact a discussion I would like to see what that discussion was on the record. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Commissioner, I believe this was a matter that the City had a peripheral interest in only. It was a federal issue and -- Vice Chairman Teele: Whether it was peripheral or not, if it came before this Commission, this Commission has a right to see the whole record relating to this land. Mr. Gibbs: I couldn't agree with you more. Ms. Dougherty: It didn't come before this Commission for a vote on that issue. It came before this Commission as a discussion item, because this commission did not want a homeless assistance center at that site. Vice Chairman Teele: Ms. Dougherty, I don't care if it came before this Commission as a Christmas item. If it was presented, this is a governmental body and we have a right to look at our own record here. We don't have to be blind. We can look at our own record and I would like to understand what the context of the record is. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMIII3_uNq-o7, 209 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: And so does anyone have a suggestion as to how we might accomplish that, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: The item would have to be continued for us to -- in order for that to be researched and come back to you, if the decision is based on that or you want that part of the record in your decision making deliberation process. Vice Chairman Teele: It is so germane to the argument of counsel over the whole issue of the objection to the governmental -- to redesignating this from governmental use. Mr. Gibbs: No, that wasn't our objection. Our objection is not that we objected to the designation, the change of the designation. In fact, they, our issue is the right now, this use is not permitted. We have no objection the use -- it's properly in context of what's next door, and if you let me continue my argument, I think you're going to see where I'm going and you're going to see other examples of this situation within the City of Miami that have been dealt with by this City Commission, and I think that may answer your question. Chairman Winton: Continue, please. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. If you look at tab two, tab two of our handout to you is Juan Gonzalez' letter and the applicant has relied and I think the Planning Department has relied on Mr. Gonzalez' letter of March 9, 2001 for the assumption that a stand alone residential project in GI is permitted. There are several reasons, this is problematic for several reasons. One, the letter ignores the comprehensive plan language. Mr. Gonzalez' letter, if you look at it, discusses a lot of stuff in the GI zoning district. The fact that 0 is a permitted use and he makes the argument that under 0 you can have an R-4 residential, you can have residential use and then it's OK. The point is, nowhere in Mr. Gonzalez' letter is the comprehensive plan ever mentioned, ever dealt with and as I said before state law says and case law confirms it that your comprehensive plan is what governs, not your zoning code, and if your comprehensive plan doesn't even mention the word residential except in saying residential ancillary to governmental institutional uses that means that a stand-alone residential use is not permitted as a matter of law. Furthermore, if you look at Mr. Gonzalez' letter, I don't necessarily believe that it's an interpretation. Because he merely recites certain provisions of the GI code provision. He doesn't talk about the intent. He doesn't talk about why the intent provision is not important and the letter ignores that language and the intent provision that mirrors the comprehensive plan. Look at the comp. plan language, look at the language in the intent section of the GI zoning district. They're the same. Ms. Dougherty may say we had our opportunity to complain about Mr. Gonzalez's letter. After all, Mr. Gonzalez wrote it on March 9th 2001, and we're entitled to an appeal to the Zoning Board of Mr. Gonzalez's opinion. That'd be real nice if any notice was ever given of Mr. Gonzalez's opinion. Mr. Gonzalez's opinions are not noticed in the newspaper, on a bulletin board, nobody knows when Mr. Gonzalez makes the opinion, so if I can, if I have 30 days from the date and I know about it, you're absolutely right I ought to appeal it. I didn't know about it. When I found out about it was at the Planning Advisory Board meeting and I had Mr. Gonzalez's office fax me a copy. It was over a year -- good God, over two years later, almost three years later. I don't think I have the right to appeal and that's the problem. I think it's a due process problem with the Ci socssesLet's look at the history and the precedent that this project will set and this SUBM1TTEDI TOThE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM 2,:e`::" ON 3-4-7-07. N N 210 January 23, 2003 goes to Commissioner Teele's issue. This property's been owned and operated by the federal government for 50 years. It's always been owned and used for public use, government use. The City placed the land -use of major institution, public facilities, transportation and utilities and GI zoning on this property because that's exactly what is was. This developer wants to take advantage of the GI zonings higher FAR, one point seven two and unlimited height. Look at the future land -use map. Is this the map? I know it's pretty small but this is the best we can do. I want you to look at the gray areas. I want you to look at the gray areas all over the City. Now, Dodge Island, Civic Center, Dinner Key and then some interesting ones, Commissioner Sanchez, Saint Peter and Paul, the temple. We have over here Saint Sophia. We have in Coconut Grove, Ransom Everglades Middle School. One thing about all these properties, they're all surrounded by single-family residential land -use. They're R-1, up by Saint Peter and Paul, R-2. Juan Gonzalez's letter says you can build this project 348 feet in the air with an FAR of 1.72. You can build this. Saint Peter and Paul sells tomorrow, it's GI. Ransom Everglades Middle School sells tomorrow, GI. Dade County School Board, our friends over at the school board, they need some money, don't they? Wouldn't it be great to sell Coconut Grove Elementary? They've talked about it, GI zoning. Want a high rise in the middle of Coconut Grove? You can look in every Commissioner's District I this town and see churches and schools that have this designation, it's land use designation and that are zoned GI, and Mr. Gonzalez's letter is telling you that you can put a high-rise on every single one of them. I checked with Lourdes Slazyk and I asked, are there any other properties in the City of Miami that are GI used, GI zoned that have a non -GI residential use, and Lourdes said yes there was one in the Civic Center somewhere in the Civic Center, and I guess, I don't know if this is it or not but I'm just guessing that's it's what use to be called the Capistrano's Tower, which is student housing for the medical students and I'm just assuming that, but it's a housing and I'm sure it housing for people who use the facilities in the Civic Center, but that's only one, and that building was built I think, in the 70's or early 80's. The point I'm trying to make is you all are opening up Pandora's box and there's a simple solution. This is a very simple solution. We're not against the high-rise. What we are is we're against the fact that this developer is trying to cram as much as he can on this property. He wants this and he wants this and he wants all of this in a zoning district where it isn't allowed. In a land -use where it isn't allowed. Let's look at how the City of Miami has disposed GI property it owns. If you look at tab three in your hand-out, you will see the example of Bobby Maduro Stadium. City owned Bobby Maduro Stadium and the City applied to change the zoning from GI to R-3. Now, if Mr. Gonzalez is correct, that wasn't necessary. You didn't need to rezone Bobby Maduro from GI to R-3 to be able to allow development there. You can do it under GI, because after all GI allows up to 150 units an acre, according to Mr. Gonzalez's letter, and because of that R-3 is considerably less than that. It could fit, it could work. Why did the City go through that exercise, that time, for his stadium, for this rezoning? Well, what it says in the planning report to the City Commission in 1998, it is found that the subject property has R-3 multi -family medium density zoning designation immediately adjacent to the northwest, see attached map. That's like us, we've go SD-17 on both sides. Then it says, it is found that the proposed change will allow the subject property to be developed at a moderate level of new residential use, which will provide opportunities for it to complement the immediate adjacent neighborhood. They didn't need this to complement the immediate adjacent neighborhood if Mr. Gonzalez is correct, but they did this, and the question is why. Why would you do that? You do it because it's the right thing to do. Bobby Maduro Stadium is a baseball stadium. You don't build houses, you don t build residential units on a baseball stadium zoned piece of property. It SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM 4r.2.( ON 3 --2e7-07 211 January 23, 2003 just makes sense, you rezone it. All we're asking this applicant to do is to rezone the property so he has the same rights and has the same favors and everybody else in the SD-17 district. Why should he get something special? Why should he get something special when nobody else on South Bayshore Drive got anything special? Approving this project in GI, based on this interpretation is opening Pandora's box. It allows the highest density residential development, R-4, in the midst of many low -density neighborhoods. This is bad planning, and it is bad planning according to your comprehensive plan. Major institutional and public facilities allow residential uses that are ancillary to those uses only. It's clear from that language. The development also needs to be consistent with the surrounding area. In your comprehensive plan and land -use objective LU 1.13 says you all are charged with protecting neighborhoods against encroachment of incompatible land uses. This is incompatible, and Mr. Alvarez, our planner is going to speak to that issue when he has the opportunity to speak. Why did these applicants apply for the MUSP? A MUSP allows the property owner to apply for and get two large bonuses per square footage. Number one is the PUD bonus, which I showed you. That's the lower part 63,327 square feet. The donation to affordable housing trust fund allows the developer to get up to 25 percent additional square footage, which is 79,000, approximately, square feet, for a total of 142,485 square feet. The affordable housing bonus allows for this increase and they allow you to make that decision as the City Commission. If you find that the increase would not, a, cause the development to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. We've already showed you that it is inconsistent with the comp. plan, that it violates concurrency. We're not arguing that it violates concurrency and that it results in a variance. Our issue here is from a legal perspective, this is nothing more than a use variance. You are allowing a use in a district where it isn't allowed and that requires a hardship. In addition to the affordable housing trust fund, the developer must pay $6.67 into the trust fund per square foot and I want you to think about that. This is a bonus. The idea is to give an incentive to a developer to provide a benefit to the community. Here Mr. Colombo gets 79,000 square feet in additional square footage at $6 a square foot, oh, $6.67 excuse me, and the City gets $527,938.86. Let's examine this trade off. The developer gets 79,000 square feet of luxury condominiums and they said it on the record. This is going to be first class and I agree with them. Mr. Colombo is the first class developer. He builds a first-class product, and that's something this City can be proud of and the City is proud of his product, but he's going to get a lot of money out of this. Because if you take this $79,000, you multiply it by it by $400, which is going rate for a top-level condominium, he's going to gross approximately $31,000,000. Cut that in half, let's say it's a $10,000,000 profit on that after his construction cost and the rest of it. Say he gets ten million bucks out of that. What does the City get for his $10,000,000 profit? The City gets a half a million dollars to build affordable housing. Let's say you build affordable housing at $75 a square foot, you end up with about four of five units, and I'm not saying that your affordable housing trust fund is a one for one trade off, but he gets $10,000,000 and the City gets 4 or 5 affordable housing units. Something is wrong, something is dreadfully wrong. The real effect is, the developer makes money and affordable housing gets a token. Where does the trust fund money go? Does it go to Coconut Grove neighborhood that is suffering from a dearth of affordable housing? What is the legal basis for this dollars for density scheme? It's my understanding that there's got to be a nexus or connection between the payment into the trust fund and the increase in square footage the developer gets in exchange for his contribution. What is it, do we know? Do we have a clue? Where's that $6.67 per square foot come from? Where is the study? And when was the study made? Is the study up to date? There is no evidence on the record that there was any SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 212 ITEM44i ON 3 ,q-a7. January 23, 2003 study done. The bonus is arbitrary and the payment has little relationship with the provision for affordable housing. It's our position that this bonus as set out in your code is illegal. The PUD bonus allows for a 20 percent increase in floor area because this project is a PUD. I defy you, the Planning Department or the Legal Department, to give a clear definition of the PUD to show me where, or show my clients, or show the public, where is the definition of the PUD I the zoning code. There is a definition. I'm going to read it to you because I don't understand what it means and maybe somebody in the Planning Department can tell me what this sentence means. Planned unit development, an area of minimum contiguous size as specified by this ordinance developed according to a plan as a single entity in containing one of more buildings or structures with a pertinent common areas. See also section 501 of these ordinance. That's a single-family house. That can be a single-family house. It's a piece of property. If you go to 501 it's the same thing. The only thing that I get out of that ordinance is that you got to have a 50,000 square foot minimum lot size. I'll let our planner talk about the PUD language and how strange it is, but let's look at the PUD bonus language, the language that gives them their seventy-nine -- their fifty something square feet. That language and I'm going to read this to your from the code. I think I have it, Mark I have on a -- it's up there? OK. This is what it says, an increase in floor area of up to 20 percent over that allowed by the underlying district when allowed under the limitations of the Miami Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the application. That's not even a sentence. It's not a sentence. It doesn't grant anything. There's no subject, there's no verb, there's nothing there. It doesn't say, if you do this, then you get this. It's a clause, but let's give them the opportunity. Let's say the City is right, and this non -sentence actually means something. Even if it means something, whatever bonuses limited by the language about the comprehensive plan, it's under the limitations of the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan doesn't allow residential in this zoning district. It doesn't allow it in this land -use category. How could you have a PUD in this land -use category? Again, what is the nexus between the PUD and the granting of the additional density? This provision is nothing more than an automatic bonus with no relationship to planning as it is granted with absolutely no standards. The language in the zoning code governing your major -use special permit in articles 13 and 17 provides only general statements that are not objective criteria. An ordinance that does not provide definite objective criteria to guide the City Commission and Advisory Board is unconstitutional. That's the Omni point case, I know people don't like hearing about it, but not only is it the Omni point case, it's several other cases cited in there. Whether it's the Federal Court or whether it's the Court -- the Appeals Court out in Hillsborough out in Pinellas County, and even if you believe that MUSP passes constitutional muster, then I ask you to look at section 1305.8, which allows you to look at this project and say hey, it's too big, let's do something about it. You have the right to deal with that potentially adverse affects from everything from buffering to lowering the size of it. Finally I had to say this for Mr. Maxwell, this project will have an impact on my clients that's not shared by other City residents. It will increase traffic and you will hear about that from my clients. It will impact on their quality of life because of its visual and aesthetic disruption of the historic South Bayshore Drive corridor. The City, if it approves this project, will give this South Bayshore Drive property owner benefits not shared by other similarly situated property owners between Aviation and 27th Avenues. Zoning interpretations that permit residential uses not ancillary to the GI uses and allow for increased density and size and height cause impacts on my clients that are not shared by other residents of this City. In conclusion, we urge you to reject this application because a residential project that suBM bel&r institutional use is not permitted under this zone -- land -use PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM`i'',:- ON-i-'7. 213 January 23, 2003 category into your comp plan and not permitted in the zoning code. The developer is seeking an advantage to increase FAR from 1.21, which is what everybody else has around it, to 1.72, an increased height from 225 feet, which is allowed everywhere else between 27th and Aviation, to 346 feet. Allowing this project in GI opens Pandora's box and allows this kind of project in every single GI land -use, every single GI district in this City. Bonuses, the PUD, affordable housing he's requesting are excessive and flawed and they're not legal. There's a simple and fair solution that we've said over and over again, I'm going to say it again. Require the developer to apply for a land -use change for residential development and rezoning consistent with the rest of South Bayshore Drive from Aviation to 17 to 27th Avenue and that's the SD-17 overlay. Mr. Alvarez will follow me. There are some neighbors who wish to speak. I'd like the opportunity when all the testimony is given to be able to cross-examine anybody providing expert testimony. Chairman Winton: How much time do they have, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): According to out timer, they have 10 minutes and 20 seconds. Chairman Winton: OK. You guys have 10 minutes so -- Mr. Gibbs: I do want to say and I need to say this Mr. Maxwell for the record that this is a quasi- judicial proceeding. I understand the need to follow through, but these are legal issues that have impact on my clients. I wish to state for the record that I need the opportunity, my clients need the opportunity to say what they have to say. If you're going to limit it, that's fine, but we're going to state our objection on the record. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Winton: We are going to limit it, so if yall are going to clap, it's only going to create more time here and that will cut down on his need to speak so. Mark Alvarez: Mark Alvarez business location at 247 Southwest 8th Street number 214. I'm a professional planner in the state of Florida registered with AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners). What I would like to do if it pleases you is I'm going to submit my notes for the record since they do need to be on the record and then I can be very, very brief maybe down to a minute or two if it's the very, very big highlights if I may do that. Mr. Maxwell: We have no -- the City has no objection, you may want to check with your counsel. Yes to the City Clerk. Mr. Alvarez: I can give you mine when I'm done. Now, I'll just hit the very big highlights. I was going to talk a lot about the compatibility. I think Tucker has, and my notes will cover a lot of those issues. I'd like to cover probably what I think is the central issue here. Certainly compatibility is the central issue for the neighbors who will speak later but the central issue is the zoning, and in section 1703 regarding your findings for granting a MUSP application, 1703 paragraph A and paragraph B say that you need to make a determination whether it will be in conformity and necessity a change in the adopted comprehensive plan or -- could you leave that - SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM nr ON 3-�9» 214 January 23, 2003 - or rather the development is in accord with or will require a change in district zoning. This development will do both based on what Tucker showed you, what Mr. Gibbs showed you that it's in the intense section of the zoning for GI and in the comprehensive plan, both of those would have to be changed in order to allow this development on GI property. Getting to the guts of that issue on the zoning issue we could spend a lot of time talking about R-4's and ancillary use we have spoken a lot about that and certainly that's the -- I say it's one of the primary issues that R-4 should be used -- is allowed only as an ancillary use. But there is a very obvious issue that we haven't really discussed and it's so obvious. In GI both in the comprehensive plan language and in the zoning language, the most salient feature of GI and it's the only place in the zoning code where the use is not defined by the actual use but it's defined by the who owns the property and who controls the property. The salient feature of GI is that it's owned, developed and controlled -- I should not say developed -- it's owned and controlled by either government or an institution. Without belaboring the point I'm not going to get into a long discussion about what institutions are but I think we can very safely say that Grovenor House LLC, which is listed as the developer in this MUSP application, is not a government and it is not an institution. An institution is something that has a public character. They can sometimes be corporations and even for -profit private corporations but they have a public character, like a school, like a homeless center, like a home for the aged, so on and so on. I think we know what an institution is. That's the major problem. That's why we can't put this development on GI. It's not public -- I'm sorry -- it's not an institution and it's not government. It has to be rezoned before this building could be put there by a private developer. That's it. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Tucker. Unidentified Speaker: I guess it's public. Chairman Winton: Well I don't -- no it is not public yet so, hold off just a minute. Tucker, are you finished with your formal testimony? Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Alvarez is finished, but there are people here who are going to testify who are citizens and -- Chairman Winton: That's the public hearing part. Mr. Gibbs: No, no, let me explain and Mr. Maxwell I think can confirm this. Lay testimony is allowed, it is allowed and it is considered -- can be considered and so, what I'd like to do is get all the testimony in because here's what's going to happen. Ms. Dougherty is going to rebut. You are going to have questions of staff. Chairman Winton: Correct. Mr. Gibbs: I would like the ability to cross-examine staff because when staff is going to respond to your question, staff is going to be presenting evidence and I have the right to cross-examine. I want to be able to cross-examine staff. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ;:;' ON 3-a1-e1. 215 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: What does that have to do with getting the public testimony in the middle of Mr. Gibbs: Well, I wanted to -- Chairman Winton: -- your expert testimony? Mr. Gibbs: I'm sorry because I want to make sure that we have all the testimony in. I thought you were asking me in terms of cross-examination. Chairman Winton: No. Mr. Maxwell: The Chairman is asking whether or not your case in chief has been presented. You -- Mr. Gibbs: Yes, our case in chief has been presented. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Mr. Gibbs: But others from the public -- Chairman Winton: Right, but, I'll do the whole public hearing part and everybody's going to get to say their piece but I want to get this piece of it done first. Lucia, I guess you have an opportunity to come back to the podium. Mr. Maxwell: He can still cross-examine. Chairman Winton: Lucia, OK, and then I'm going to have staff come up and -- Mr. Maxwell: The time for that, Mr. Chairman, will be -- do you -- would you like to cross examine any of -- Mr. Gibbs: No, but I may be cross examining City staff and I want the ability to be able to cross examine City staff. Mr. Maxwell: You have that, you have that right. Mr. Gibbs: And that's why I'm waiting until the end to be able to do that. Chairman Winton: So, Mr. City Attorney, is it time to hear -- Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Chairman Winton: Thank you. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 216 January 2>.zoo, ITEM.:.:'; ON 3 -o, Ms. Dougherty: I'd like to rebut after when I hear all the testimony of the residents as well if you don't mind. Mr. Maxwell: You can, Mr. Chairman, you can then waive that and take testimony from the citizens at this time. Two minutes I think, you said you'd limit it to two. Chairman Winton: Well, don't we want -- when do we want staff to answer questions? Mr. Maxwell: You have the right if you want to do that now. Chairman Winton: I guess we can do that after we hear all the -- OK. We will now open the public hearing portion of this so, Ron, or whomever. And we're going to limit this to -- the public hearing portion two minutes each max. If you can get it done in one great, and let's try not to do too much repetitive stuff. You're on. Name and address please for the record. Robert Krulick: Robert Krulick, 2481 Trapp Avenue, Coconut Grove and I'm a member of the Coconut Grove Village Council, elected member, and we the council had just passed a resolution in opposition of this project. It's just not in fitting with the neighborhood and so as to not to be redundant, we totally agree with Mr. Gibbs and we back everything he said. We would like to see this project, this property zoned to reflect the adjacent zoning and it's just totally inappropriate for the area as it is. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Next podium. Bruce Lazar: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Bruce Lazar, I live at Grove Towers 2843 South Bayshore Drive. I'm the past president of the condominium association. I'm presently the Vice President and a member of the board although I'm speaking individually. I'm here to support this project. I think that we have a quality architect. We have a quality developer. We have a well -sited building that sits way back off Bayshore. I remember when this was going to be used for a homeless shelter and everyone in the Grove raised a great hue and cry about doing that and now we have the opportunity to have a quality building, low impact building in Coconut Grove only 150 residents, which will have very little impact on South Bayshore Drive and I think to lose that opportunity would be a terrible mistake. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Y'all just keep stepping right up right back and forth, OK? Rosalie Leposa: I'm Rosalie Leposa. I'm just outside as an owner -- Chairman Winton: What's your address? Ms. Leposa: 2311 South Bayshore Drive. Chairman Winton: Thank you. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM 14: ON a1v-oz 217 to the microphone, we're going to bounce of the borders of his association so I speak January 23, 2003 Ms. Leposa: Right on Bayshore. I'm very concerned about the height of this building. I'm a City planner by education. I'm not affiliated with any company, any organization, any government, and I'm terribly, terribly concerned about the elevation of the new buildings and the extra privileges involved in those elevations and we are changing forever if we continue to do this, the nature of our community. I saw in this morning's paper another piece of property, which has been low density and low use Taurus in now coming down for another high-rise. When are we going to have enough of excessively tall buildings? Thank you ever so much. Chairman Winton: Next podium. Gordon Ettie: My name is Gordon Ettie I live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive. I actually grew up in the Grove too. And what I've heard tonight is you have a difficult decision to make. And how would you base that decision on? There was a lot of issues with this building and you've heard that. They've redesigned it, they tried to address a great deal of the issues and I think they've done a great job on the planting and the views and things like that, but they missed one very important point, does it fit in with the Grove? Does it work I think was quoted by Ms. Dougherty, so the context of the Grove? You have to take a hard look tat that when you make your decision because as being having grown up in the Grove and a resident there and using all of the facilities of the Grove plus the water, this building just does not fit. It does not fit in the context of the Grove and if you allow this to happen you're opening a Pandora's box and your also impacting on the quality of life of the Grove with the traffic. We live there. We survive that traffic. You're going to have more traffic and so I beseech you to make a good decision on this to make the Grove a great place to live as it is right now and limit the size of this building, thank you. Renan Nance: I am Renan Nance and I reside at 2645 South Bayshore Drive. I'm a resident of Grove Hill apartment 1401. Let's not be impressed by all of the changes to design and to the placement of this design on the property because with all of the changes obviously there must have been some flaws along the way and those changes should not impress you I feel. The other issue is, Grove Hill Association signed an agreement with the developer but within that agreement there were provisions for individual unit owners to object and I did -- I do have 27 petition signers who object to the density and the size of this project. Please oppose this project. Jonathan Blum: Good evening my name is Jonathan Blum. I live at 2843 South Bayshore Drive. I'm here tonight as a resident of Coconut Grove and a citizen of the City of Miami and I'm here to only say two things. Number one, I'd like to be proud in my City government for doing the right thing. I would like the City Officials to be very careful in granting exceptions and granting variances to anyone under any circumstances. If it's not appropriate, if there's not a bigger general public good to be derived by the granting of acceptions and variances I think, they should be considered very carefully. Also, I'm here this evening to challenge Mr. Colombo and his associated partners because he does have a good reputation of building beautiful buildings. I would like him to not simply enhance his existing reputation by building another beautiful building but I would like for him actually to perhaps build a model for the country. Something designed, quote -unquote, "out of the box", something that fits in with a very demanding environment, a village. He could perhaps just reduce the profits a little bit and make something that would be beautiful and last forever, thank you. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM'; ON3--'. 218 January 23, 2003 Robert Ingrahm: Good evening, my name is Robert Ingrahm. I reside at 3526 Palmetto Avenue in South Grove, I work at Ransom Everglades School. I've been in the Grove for a lot of years and the one thing I noticed is that everybody wants to come to the Grove and be part of the life that's we live there and as soon as they get there they want to change it. Ladies and gentlemen Coconut Grove is full, it is a sold out show. It is unconscionable to continue to continue to sell tickets to sold out show. If this were an airplane we would not allow it to take off. At some point we have to stop building these things. I counted 11 or 12 tonight coming out of Dinner Key. Every one of those buildings blocks the breeze that the original settlers came here to enjoy when the bay was their show. This is a lot like sitting in a movie with somebody standing in front of you. Thank you. Chris Brunk: My name is Chris Brunk I live at 2545 Lincoln Avenue. I've been a resident of the Grove since 1985, raised my children there and my houseliterally would be -- I would look at this building and frankly I would rather look at this building than have to worry about another 500 or 490 or whatever the number was, apartment units in that same spot. I would much rather have 150 units and less traffic and less people in that area because he's right, it is a full plane as he said. However, if we allow them or we turn this down, the alternative is horrifying. I can't even I'm imagine having a 500 unit complex two blocks from my house. It will not be good. You don't know how many people would be there. A lot more cars they are planning to bring to our community so, I am absolutely opposed to not allowing them to have this project because I think it's important that we keep the quality in the Grove. I think it's something, we already know how my Colombo builds his buildings and I think it's a testimony to his (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I just don't think it's a good idea to allow an apartment complex to be in the same spot. Thank you. Jim Broton: My name is Jim Broton. I live at 951 Northwest 10th Court. I'm president of the Spring Garden Civic Association. I'm here to oppose this out -of -scale development at this site. I applaud the Planning Department recent efforts to change the zoning where they find it inappropriate. I hope that the zoning here and in the Spring Garden Highland Park Overtown neighborhood will be changed soon to protect us while there are still neighborhoods here to protect. Thank you. Mariano Cruz: I'm waiting for Chairman. Chairman Winton: Y'all keep bounce, bounce, bounce. You don't need my permission. Name and address and go. Mr. Cruz: Mariano Cruz 1227 Northwest 26th Street. My presence here is mostly as a point of information. One thing I see here quality of life, what about our quality of life when I see in the Coconut Grove Times an article endorsing Camillus House, and I wrote the letter and it's in this months paper there a little note there. When that Naval Reserve place was there for the take 100 points for homeless institution and there was a big fight. The City Commission, there was a motion from Plummer $10,000 to the Neighborhood Association to fight the homeless people going to Coconut Grove. No, now, it's OK for the Coconut people to send it to Allapattah. Oh, sure, and they talk about -- and you know what I am for all this anything private industry that brin taxes to the City to help subsidize the affordable rental housing that the City Commission SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM „ON2-9-o7. 219 January 23, 2003 has allowed in past years in Allapattah -- at the Bobby Maduro Stadium that's what they get there. The City change the sell it and not for affordable homeownership like this is going to be, homeownership or whatever it is. No, but quality of life, sorry. You know, the most important life is life itself. Think of the building or the store there. Now you get a heart attack or a stomachache, you don't worry about the height of that building. Think of that for one minute. Your quality of life, life, is the most important thing in life and people here worry about the raccoons about that about the -- may the sun coming in the morning or not. No, no, no, no but why you want to treat the people of Allapattah different? We want parity, and that is the reason I am here today because something if I see an article in the paper of Coconut Grove that it says the state has surplus land in Allapattah you can use it for Camillus House well, the GSA (General Services Administration) the federal government has surplus land there that could be used for Camillus House, too. Thank you. Kendall Coffey: Good evening honorable Commissioners my name is Kendall Coffey. I live at 1639 South Bayshore. I work at 2665 South Bayshore, my daughter goes to school in Coconut Grove. I have characteristics in impact that are not common to other City residents. Because Commissioners ask that we be brief and not repetitious, a hard enough thing for any lawyer, I'll try to incorporate by reference Mr. Gibbs's remark which I think very well describe incompatibility with the character and the aesthetics of this community, and just as fundamentally the inconsistency with applicable zoning criteria. The only answer I heard to the fact that this is not a credibly consistent development with the GI usages to sort of blame whoever was opposed to homeless housing some ten years ago. Well, that's first of all irrelevant and secondly, it's wrong. I happen to have represented as cocounsel with Hogan and Hartson the homeless advocates that sought to make sure this property had the opportunity to be considered for homeless housing. For a lot of different reasons, that didn't happen, but nothing could be more beside the point and the reality is, that that is an essential legal requirement. The other reason that I think that this kind of project is not justifiable is found in the justifications your own staff gave you. They said there's a housing need. What is the housing need in this Coconut Grove community for luxury condominiums? They also told you that there weren't access problems. I can't imagine that they stepped foot within 500 yards of that area of town if they don't think there are enormous access problems. You can't get in and out on a Friday and Saturday night without moving about three miles an hour for a very long time, and whether is 409 additional parking spaces or 4,000, there isn't any more room. So, for all these reasons we urge the denial of this request. Bob Fitzsimmions: My name is Bob Fitzsimmions. I like at 2512 Abacco Avenue in Coconut Grove. I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Park Homeowners Association, which is the area of single-family houses that surround this project to the north, and we are the single-family residents that will live with this project after the developer has built it, made his money and left. So, I ask one, out of respect that the developer representative not be presumptuous and tell us what's better for us. Whether this project is better for us than some other project that might be proposed. We want to judge it on this project. And the issue for us is very simple. You have developed the zoning for South Bayshore to make it consistent and to make each building compatible with the other. We simply ask that you zone this parcel so that it is compatible and that it is consistent. If you allow this to happen, instead of having the consistent 220-foot height limitation, we have 346 feet. That's a huge additional building that I will look at, that the SUBMITTED INTO THE 220 PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEICY- ON 3-)"7o? January 23, 2003 members of my association who live in their single-family houses will look at for the rest of our mortgage payments while the developer is gone. All we ask is that you allow them to rezone it, we'll support the rezoning so it's consistent with the SD-17 and build a building within the guidelines of SD-17. Thank you. Joe Jamison: Hello, my name is Joe Jamison. I live at 2591 Trapp Avenue in the Grove and I've just been living in the Grove for about five years so, I'm not a lifer like some of these people, but I came here actually to point out a few things and also pose a few questions. First of all, the first question is, what impact has been determined about the effect of the building of such a building on that site? Will it bring about the escalation of property values of income tax assessments in the surrounding communities and by doing that, will it cause about it a transformation of the Grove from an area that's represented by a diverse income mix and ethnic mix to simply a Grove that is for people who can afford very expensive high-rise condominiums? I was wondering if that assessment has been made. I think that one of the main concerns here is that it's not so much the building itself, but the precedent it sets in the fact that the building could represent stage one of a rather grotesque transformation of the Grove. I think that's the thing that people are really most concerned about. They do see the essential character of the Grove being destroyed, and actually the lure of the Grove the reason that it has, its reason for being, they see that being eliminated. They see it turning into yet another really mega high-rise, overpriced condos, so I was wondering an assessment had been done of the economic impact of this either this building or all the buildings that could follow. And my final question, and I'll get off is, the developer talks about establishing these good relationships and maintaining these good relationships with the surrounding -- the people of the surrounding community and I was wondering if they would mind specifying what steps they did to ensure that they remain in the good graces of the neighboring community? Thank you very much. Andy Parrish: Andy Parrish, 1617 Tigertail Avenue. I'm the president of Wind and Rain Homebuilders in Coconut Grove, which is the only affordable homebuilder in the African American section of Coconut Grove. I'm also a member of the planning and zoning committee of the Coconut Grove Collaborative and we have bunches of questions about the amount of the affordable donation that's being made to the City whether it's adequate or not, where the money is going to go, whether it's going to stay in Coconut Grove. The Commissioners should know and they're probably going to face the same things in their areas. There is a tremendous need for affordable housing in the African American section of Coconut Grove as gentrifying extremely rapidly and all these issues that affect where funding is coming from and how much it is and whether it's fair and whether it's going to go to into the right area, into the area that needs it, or would -- the Collaborative would love to meet with all those parties to discuss that, and that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Angus Murray: Good evening, Commissioners. Angus Murray, 2462 Inagua Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm reminded of an old episode of Dragnet that some people may remember. Joe Friday's been invited to dinner by his partner and this is the Harry Morgan Dragnet, not the Ben Alexander which was my favorite. And Joe Friday protests. He said, "You got a family. You're not going to have enough food." So, his partner says to him, "That's all right. We'll just cut the meat a little thinner," and that's what's going on constantly now in Coconut Grove. I just feel that my wife and my neighbors we're under attack by these developers and there ain't going to SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR STEM "itt',' ON a-.;o-0-7. 221 January 23, 2003 be much left of the meat here. The planes full, everything's been sliced. When I walk out of my house, go for a walk, I look up and I see the top of the Ritz Carlton. So, now I'm going to look at this thing. I'm losing my sky. We're going to have a series of walls running down 27th, that'll get four-laned. Progression of these things going down Tigertail, the building at 22nd and US-1 is an absolute abomination and that may get extended in terms of height with other buildings all the way down there. I urge you, Commissioners, to make this guy go back to the drawing board and do something that's more in keeping with my neighborhood. Thank you. Ron Nelson: Good evening. My name is Ron Nelson, 2535 Inagua Avenue. I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. We're happy to see high -end condo, lower density. That's nice. We're happy to see that they have managed to save some trees although that wasn't originally their plan. It took major objections to make that happen and we're glad to see that they've done it. And now we still have the issue of too much building. It should conform to the zoning. I won't go into that. You've heard the argument from the attorneys. Remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You do it on this GI property, you're going to have this argument on every other GI property around, and remember that to take into account the spirit of the others. I think the Grove Hill Towers next door could have pushed their building to within 10 feet of the property line and extended their balconies out over that and really had a setback of five or seven feet as this building is doing, pushing all the way to the edge and then extending their balconies into the setback, and you have this massive building with almost no setback. So, when you see the drawings remember those setbacks are because people like Grove Hill set their building back more than they really needed to because that's the Grove. You need room. You need foliage. You need those things that make it nice and this building has just done lot line to lot line width. I understand to get the through buildings but the rest of the people that live behind that have 346 feet from lot line to lot line casting a shadow on their single-family homes. It's not appropriate. It needs to be within the guidelines around it. Thank you very much. Sue Kaye -Martin: Hello my name is Sue Kaye -Martin and I live on Blain Street in Coconut Grove. I've live in Coconut Grove since 1960 so that's like 43 years and I don't have a problem with sensible and sensitive advancement of the quality of life in Coconut Grove, but the quality of live is very ill served by packing a minimum of 151 units on quite a small space. I know exactly the acreage there because I've lived there in that house since 1968. Now, what they want to do is continue the condominium canyon from Brickell Avenue all the way down to the Barnacle and I violently object to that, because that's affecting my quality of life. They talk about a quality project, well, what about my quality project, my life? If this project is built as they plan, I will walk out my front door on Blain Street and turn toward the bay and the obscene middle finger will be starring right at me at the intersection of Tigertail and Blain Street, and also by the way, there's no air let now anyway. They've already blocked it all off. Thank you very much. Ilaria Legnaro: My name is Ilaria Legnaro. I live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive. I'd like to oppose this development. We heard the development representative addressing the concern of adjacent owners. Well, I don't live right next to the project in question but I live another building removed from that. I believe after having lived in Coconut Grove seven years that this project is going to have a tremendous impact on our lives, not just in terms of traffic but also in terms of again of the skyline. They also mentioned about previous project that were developed SUBMITTED INTO THE DUBLIC RECORD FOR TEM.J_ON 3 222 January 23, 2003 by this developer and all of them are massive look-alikes. No matter how you look at them they are basically an image, a further image of what we're going to have. This project is also very massive. It will disregard just like the previous one has disregarded the current development of the areas such as the one in Coconut Grove. I also heard before that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) state that there have been many changes and also that it would be desirable to have this specific developer handle the project. My concern, and I hope yours also, should not be who will be the developer or whether there has been enough changes but whether the project itself and -- is appropriate, and it is not. So, if it takes an additional change, and an additional reformation to what it is right now to make it right, I hope you will support that. Thank you. Nina West: My name is Nina West. I have a home at 176 Northwest 44 Street. Chairman Winton: We can hear you. Ms West: OK. But I also have a home in Coconut Grove and one of the reasons that I own these two homes is because they were in small neighborhoods. There's a mix of economic types, ethnic types and what makes for a vibrant City living. And for me these two little houses are a total investment of my life savings and they are also to preserve what's best of Miami. So, I am asking that you not set this precedent. Biscayne Boulevard is going to be developed all the way up North, it's the North Corridor. We look forward to the park in Little Haiti and we look forward to the diversity of the community. And we don't think that high-rise condominium development that is low density is necessarily a vibrant addition to the cultural part, social part and the fabric of the community concerning the people who are here, thank you. Linda Ettie: My name is Linda Ettie. I live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive on the corner of Aviation and Bayshore and I am in agreement with Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Nelson and all these other people who have spoken in objection to the development of the Grovenor property as it stands. Thank you. Ted Stahl: My name is Ted Stahl, 2867 Day Avenue. I have been in this community for 65 years, born and raised here. I have stood before you many, many times over the many years and I always stood at this podium defending the betterment of my community not ever for personal gain. I don't think anyone that has been at these podiums have been totally opposition to development. We understand development, all we're asking you is that this not be so huge a development. We are on a scenic drive that cannot be expanded and the traffic has become a very serious problem here and I hope that you will consider the people that have lived here for many years and have supported this community, and Commissioner Winton that's one minute, I get a credit on the next time for one minute. Chairman Winton: Thanks, Ted, I'll keep that in mind. Jim McMaster: Jim McMaster 2940 Southwest 30th Court. As president of the Tree -Man Trust I'm here just to discuss the trees on the property. As Lucia mentioned we have met with the owners. Art Murphy was nice enough to come by to two of our meeting, and the owners -- again, if the footprint of this building, whatever the footprint is, whether it's a three story building on top of it or thirty three story building, the impact is the same on the trees. The same SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM :ice' ON 3 >ri- �. 223 January 23, 2003 things go with the access drives. So, we are here just talking about the trees. The owners have pulled the underground parking garage away from Tigertail to same some oaks. We've had some discussions about redesigning the front to save the two oak trees in front of the building. We do not have a signed agreement. Lucia mentioned that Grove Hill Towers had a signed agreement on a certain date. We are hoping to have one but we do not. We're pleased that the changes that they've made but as you Commissioners know until it's in writing you don't really have an agreement. So, we're just here to put on the record that the plan as presented is not acceptable. Thank you. Jo Lee: Thank you, Jo Lee, 1736 Espanola Drive. I realize you said this wasn't relevant but I just wanted to say as a long time resident of the Grove I remember well when this property was being considered for use by the Miami Coalition For the Homeless. Claudia Kitchen was Executive Director. The thing was to be for job training for families. I made myself unpopular with some of my neighbors for speaking in favor of the project. So, not everyone here was opposed to helping the homeless. But on to the subject at hand, I certainly agree with Tucker Gibbs that we think that enforcement of the comprehensive plan is really the issue here and I agree also that we certainly don't need another out of scale high-rise. We also would like to comment that perhaps consultation you might even refer to the Coconut Grove planning study for what many of the residents desire for their community. Thank you. Felice Dubin: Hi. My name is Felice Dubin, and I reside at 2645 South Bayshore Drive. The building will block part of my view, which is of the City, and yet I believe that it' 11 be an elegant building. It'll bring more business to the Grove, which I certainly believe the Grove needs. And 150 more units is a lot of units to have people to come to our restaurants and enhance the Grove. So, I'd rather see that than something -- no? But at least this will bring money -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me, you're allowed your point of view and you're not, you don't have to respond to anybody just your point of view just like everybody else and it goes on the record. Ms Dubin: So, any way's, I'd rather see this than anything that would be -- would not bring people to the Grove and I'm one of those truly affected as Mrs. Nance here but I'm in favor of the building, thank you. Harold Turk: Hi, my name is Harold Turk. I live at 3121 Kirk Street in the Grove, a couple of blocks from the project. Frankly, it's kind of mystifying to me that the choice that we have for this property is -- was a homeless shelter and this monolithic oversized condominium. There's certainly no dearth of luxury condominiums in the Grove or the City of Miami and in reality these luxury condominiums really don't bring that much business. But the bottom line seems that the developer can build this by changing the zoning and still make a reasonable profit on his investment. Just to go forward with this excessive size building just seems a little greedy to me and really very negative impact on all of us who live in the City of Miami, not just the people in the Grove. Thank you. Dolly Macintyre: My name is Dolly Macintyre. I live at 1835 South Bayshore Drive. I am in opposition to this building for the reasons that Tucker gives as outlined. I do wish to comment SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM Wit: ON . 224 January 23, 2003 that I wish Lucia and her associates would at least be honest with us. We all know that this project is not consistent with Coconut Grove. And we all know that the trees won't make it, and we all know that this is not a low -impact project. Why don't they just come out and say, "We've pulled a fast one on you." because that's what they've done. This group is so sure of us and you that they've already started selling units in this building. So, why can't they at least be honest and simply say we're going to do what we want to do. It's up to you to say no for us. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Joyce Nelson: Joyce Nelson, 2535 Inagua, and I have been a Grove resident since 1974 and I've been holding my finger in the dike here since 1990 so, things have been getting better. I have to say thank you very much to some of the Commissioners that are up there now and our Mayor. I see things improving and I hope we're not going to step backwards. I hope we're not going to bow down to another developer and approve something that shouldn't be approved. I'm really holding you accountable for that. I think you know what is best for us. That's why we're here and we want to make ourselves known to you. One property that they did not mention that's zoned GI is the Playhouse also, right in Coconut Grove and that's what we need right at the playhouse is one of these. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Winton: OK, anyone else from the public want to comment? Where is she? She is a part of the public hearing now? OK, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. This property is zoned GI. We know that. We know that residential which is ancillary to a public institution is permitted such as a dormitory for a junior college, such as a prison would be permitted. We aren't seeking to do such a thing, but we also know that the GI governmental institutional zoning district regulation permits residential. It's clear. It says it right in the zoning ordinance. And then he's saying that comprehensive plan doesn't allow it. He's read to you only one little portion of the comprehensive plan and that portion of the comprehensive plan does not say it's prohibited like industrial. The comprehensive plan for the industrial district says it's prohibited. And not every use, which is permitted in every comp plan category, is actually listed. But the most important thing is I want to read to you from the comprehensive plan above all the categories. It says the land -use designations, which appear in the future land -use plan map are arranged following a pyramid concept of cumulative inclusion whereby subsequent categories are inclusive in those previously listed except, as otherwise noted. In this case it's not otherwise noted. This category is inclusionary in the office -zoning district, which is exclusionary in the R-4 zoning district. So, the comprehensive plan also permits this as a use that is permitted, residential use. But you also have a safeguard and the safeguard is it requires a special exception. Before you can have a residential use introduced into this you have a special exception. That special exception is included within this Major Use Special Permit. We aren't cramming anything into this property. We are not asking for any variances. We're not asking for anything that any other developer isn't permitted to have. In fact, if we rezone this property to whatever they say we should, which SU�EI?15 ti1NTO k, it's the same setbacks. You have the exactly the same setbacks. We are THE PUBLICRECORD FOR 225 January 23, 2003 ITEM S ON3-.n_a7 asking for 150 units. Under the SD-17, which they would like us to have, we could have 490 or somebody else could we wouldn't have it. The height is really the only issue. The height, not the setbacks, because again the setbacks are exactly the same. So, what are we talking about in terms of height? Yes, it's not exactly the same, but wouldn't this be a monotonous City if every single building was exactly the same height? That's not the case on Brickell Avenue, which is probably the most prestigious you have in all of the City of Miami. They are different heights. They don't all have this monotonous skyline. Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: I thought you were rebutting, not repitching. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Winton: Excuse me, please, please -- Ms. Dougherty: I think I am rebutting. I'm rebutting the comprehensive plan, I'm rebutting their height issues but I will, I will -- Chairman Winton: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: -- defer to you. They have one issue left. I'm not going to fight the legal arguments that I have a listing of but they asked what is the bonus doing for the City? And I'll tell you what the bonuses are doing. That bonus is giving you a million dollars in taxes, just the bonus I'm not taking the rest of the building. The bonus alone is giving you a million dollars in taxes and $500,000 into your Affordable Housing Trust Fund in addition to the taxes. That's what it's doing for your City. It's giving you a quality development on this site which otherwise could be a whole litany of other things with a quality developer that is not maximizing the site by any means. So, and I'd ask you to have your City Attorney address some of these legal issues as well as your Planning Department. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Tucker, last shot. Mr. Tucker: I didn't know I got the opportunity to re -rebut. Chairman Winton: Does he? Mr. Maxwell: No. Mr. Tucker: But I'm going to accept it. Mr. Maxwell: You had indicated that you wanted to cross-examine are you waiving that? SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMIti; ONo->e7-oi 226 January 23, 2003 Mr. Tucker: I don't know if you have any questions to staff. Right now I have nothing to cross- examine on but if staff is going to make -- if you are going to ask questions of staff -- Chairman Winton: Is he allowed to do that? Ms Tucker: I have the ability to cross-examine staff. That's why I -- Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Tucker: -- asked him to wait till the end. Chairman Winton: Well, we are going to ask questions of staff so. Lourdes. I think -- I'm going to ask you a number of the questions relative to the technical, legal part, so you can get that on the record. Does this application comply with our comp plan? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, it does. The statements I was actually going to get up my notes here exactly what Lucia had said. We do have a pyramid comprehensive plan. The land -use categories are arranged in a pyramid fashion. When you get up to industrial it specially excludes residential because that is one of those "unless otherwise noted" items. And the comprehensive plan, just for the benefit of all of the Commissioners, is a generalized description of each of the land -use classifications. It does not list everything that's allowed in each of the land -use classifications. In fact, specially in the major institutional public facilities transportation and utilities which is the land -use for the GI, when it talks about the residential facilities, ancillary to these uses are allowed a maximum density equivalent to high -density multi -family residential. It goes on to say subject to the same limiting conditions. These land -use classifications mirror the zoning classifications and when you go to the zoning ordinance that's where your detailed land development regulations are. That's where all of the specific uses, specific setbacks, specific FAR issues are addressed. They were meant to be addressed in the comprehensive plan. Tucker also brought up the land -use objective that -- about the incompatible uses and making sure that incompatible uses are not introduced into residential areas. This is not an incompatible use, because it's completely surrounded by residential. To talk about what a land -use classification name is or the actual use of the property, in this case, this is a residential property. A residential project coming into a zone where it's residential uses, it's not incompatible. Chairman Winton: Does Juan Gonzalez letter state that this project is allowed? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, is does. I have here extra copies, if the Commissioners what to see the March 9th interpretation. Commissioner Sanchez: I would. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, could you have Ms. Slazyk indicate exactly who Mr. Gonzalez is -- Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Maxwell: -- and his role. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 1TFM nni 1-sr)--ti1 227 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: Juan Gonzalez was the zoning administrator in the City of Miami at the time that this interpretation was issued. He recently retired. What the interpretation says pursuant to -- it was in response to a letter. Pursuant to your March 5th 2001 letter concerning the GI zoning designation and whether a residential multi -family use is permitted, please be advised of the following: the GI zoning designation includes uses permitted as a principal use under the 0 zoning designation, which further incorporates the R-4 designation, which includes as a permitted principle use multi -family residential dwelling units. The exception to the GI zoning designation is that to introduce a new principal use, a special exception must be obtained. If the proposed residential tower exceed 200 dwelling units or provides and excess of 500 off -Street parking spaces a Major Use Special Permit must be obtained. That's the interpretation. If you look at the GI zoning classification and the zoning ordinance, it allows this as a permitted principal use subject to the special exception, which is required in GI to introduce any new use onto a piece of property. Chairman Winton: On this issue of GI use, Tucker stated that if we allowed this use on this GI site that we automatically then essentially allow by right any other GI site in the City of Miami to be converted to the same kind of density. Is that correct? Ms. Slazyk: Not automatically. Obviously, first of all, if it were to be requested, a special exception would be required. Under the special exception using the criteria that we use, just like it was said early on here, when this project was first brought to the Planning and Zoning Department for review, it was forty some odd stories tall. The Planning and Zoning Department did not support that because of looking at the criteria in the zoning ordinance for special permits, it would have been an adverse affect. So, through our comments and through the design review, the project was modified a few times before what you see here tonight. I think that through the criteria and the zoning ordinance for special exception and the adverse affects I think we would deny such request, but what is true about what he said is that they can request it. The request can be made in some of these other sites. That doesn't mean they're going to get it. It's not automatic. Chairman Winton: Well, but it -- Ms. Slazyk: But they are allowed to ask. Chairman Winton: They would be allowed to ask. We would be allowed to deny. Ms. Slazyk: We would be allowed to deny subject to noncompliance -- Chairman Winton: And they would be allowed to appeal including to Circuit Court. Ms. Slazyk: Right, but the request is allowed. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FQR ITEM' -ON 31al1 228 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: And then we have to deal with this issue, then a judge will determine whether or not we've set the precedent here on this particular site. Is that correct or incorrect? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. They don't look at precedent. They will look at whether or not you acted in arbitrary capricious fashion. Whether or not your decision was based on competence, substantial evidence. Chairman Winton: OK, thank you. Ms. Slazyk: And that's what the criteria does. That's what we look at when we utilize the criteria to make an evaluation on a project. That's why they're case by case. Chairman Winton: OK. Does this property have -- the property, period does it have a right to the PUD benefits and low-income housing credits? Ms. Slazyk: It's subject to this major use special permit, so we applied the criteria of the major use special use permit. If this project was not seeking those bonuses, the PUD and the affordable housing trust fund, it would not have needed a major use special permit. The special exception would have been enough, because the density they're coming in at is below what would have been a major use special permit threshold. What they requested here was the additional FAR through the major use special permit so that they can do bigger units not more units. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: And that's one of the things we look at for this in determining the adverse affects. They are not increasing to more units to put more traffic. In fact the City has an independent reviewer of their traffic studies when the submit for the MUSP and they were well below you know, what was required. Chairman Winton: Haven't we done something recently in the Grove to address this whole PUD issue, I mean, something changed? Ms. Slazyk: Single families, R-1 were taken out. Chairman Winton: OK. So that's what -- Ms. Slazyk: So, the R-1 PUDs are no longer exist. Chairman Winton: The six dollars and some cents on the affordable housing -- the amount that the developer pays per square foot into affordable housing program isn't that amount set by code. Ms. Slazyk: It is set in the zoning ordinance. It was set actually back in the 80's I believe. I don't think it's been restudied and reevaluated to see if it should be raised. Chairman Winton: So, we -- SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ON 3-ao- 0-7. 229 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: It was done by code. Chairman Winton: -- we probably need to re-evaluate it. Ms Slazyk: Absolutely. Chairman Winton: Can we make a change of that amount in the middle of something like this? Ms. Slazyk: No, because it's a zoning ordinance amendment you have to amend your ordinance first and that ordinance amendment should be based on a study. This very issue came up at the Planning Advisory Board last night and they actually passed a motion asking us to do that and come back to them with those revised figures. Chairman Winton: Could this site any longer be used as a homeless center given the fact that it's no longer in government hands? Would this site still qualify under -- what was that? The McKinney Act or whatever y'all? Mr. Maxwell: Property's been disposed of at this point. The McKinney Act dealt with disposition of government property so, I don't think the McKinney Act is now an issue. Whether or not it can be used as a homeless center now would depend on whether our code would allow it. Chairman Winton: My last question, I'm confused over this whole issue, the zoning issue related to the different SD overlays. Would you explain what the differences are here, what the issues are here? Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Winton: It seems, aren't they're three different -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, there are three different zonings on the properties on either side of this. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk: There's the 0, the SD-17 and the SD-19. The 0 is the underline zoning classification. So, even the properties next door have the -- you know, base zoning with the one point seven two FAR and the hundred and fifty units all of the same things that this property has as GI. What happened with the other properties on either side is that the zoning overlays of SD- 17 and SD-19 were put on them to limit things like FAR, height and you know, whatever all the details are in those. That's what makes the big difference, but the underlying zoning on the properties next door is equivalent to GI as far as density and FAR and all of that, but those things were changed on the properties next door by the special district overlay. Chairman Winton: OK but if the special district overlays were in effect what would it mean here? SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM Tafj'3 ON 3-a9-0-7, 230 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: It would mean that they would be limited to a 220 foot height limit or else they would have to come in and request a height variance. It would mean that the base FAR that they would have based their increases on would have been the 1.21 versus a 1.72. Those are the two big issues because as far as setbacks and all those other things, I don't think those are much different. Chairman Winton: By our code what rights does the Planning and Zoning Department have to have required this development to get rezoned and fall under the SD-17 or SD-19 whichever one it is versus the route that was taken? I mean, do -- does the department have that kind of flexibility to require one route versus the other? Ms. Slazyk: We can't require a property owner to rezone his property before coming in with an application. We could downzone, but that's not something that is -- and Joel can probably speak to that better than me -- it's not something that's taken into lightly. To do a down zoning would require substantial studies and it's just not something -- Chairman Winton: So we could -- Ms. Slazyk: -- we do lightly. Chairman Winton: -- we couldn't have required the developer to rezone his property to Ms. Slazyk: No. Chairman Winton: What was it? Ms. Slazyk: Let me explain Bobby Madurro what happened and it's interesting -- Mr. Maxwell: Hold on, Ms. Slazyk. Bobby Madurro is -- may I suggest that Bobby Madurro's a separate application it really not relevant to the decision before the Commission now. You ask whether or not they could demand that the developer go a different route. I think that's a developers prerogative when the planning staff and the Zoning Administrator who is charged under our zoning ordinance with interpreting -- these sole individual charged with interpreting our zoning ordinance, unless that decision is appeal, which it wasn't in this particular case. So, if the Zoning Administrator and staff have already determined that the use to the applicant is seeking is permissible under existing law, then I don't think it's proper, I don't think it would be proper for staff at that time to demand that any applicant proceed on a different path. Now, if they find that the applicant's request in incompatible to the neighborhood then their duty is to recommend, based on the criteria that they utilize, that it be denied. If they don't want to see it perceived down the street or onto other areas, then they should downzone those areas, so that it doesn't occur again, or change the law so that it doesn't occur again, but I don't think that it would be proper for them to say you cannot proceed under a code provision that clearly allows them based on interpretation to do so. Chairman Winton: OK. I don't have any further questions so -- SUBMITTED INTO THE 'UBLIC RECORD FOR Ki>:i: ON3-ao-oZ 231 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: You have basically asked a lot of questions that I would ask. I just have one or two questions from the staff. Would you say that this project is compatible in characteristic to its surrounding? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, and let me answer. The 220-foot height limit that was being talked about is a fairly recent amendment. The building next door is not 220 feet. One of the two is in the 300 range and I forgot how much the other one is but the majority of the buildings are not 220 feet. That was a recent amendment because the code used to read 220 feet or 22 stories and most of the buildings came in with 22 stories with mezzanines and really tall Florida ceiling height type thing so they are not 220 feet. What happened in this building is it went through the design review process and the shaping of the building, it was stepped down in a way to more compatibly meet its neighbors, and because of how it's oriented -- it came down to design, is really what it came down to for compatibility. In stepping the building down on the sides and orienting the way that they did slanting it toward the front the width becomes imperceptible unless you are out on a boat on the water at exactly a certain angle, it really becomes imperceptible because you see it as different angles as you move through Bayshore. And the height is something that was shaped in a way to more gradually meet its neighbors, so that the height in the absolute middle is not a block that extends the entire width of the property and those are the things that we looked at for incompatibility and we determined it was. Commissioner Sanchez: When you say that the project is relatively low density for the site would allow, elaborate a little bit on that. Ms. Slazyk: The sight allows whether it's the 0 underlying SD-17 or GI. It allows 150 units per acre, which means that under the amount of acreage that this property has, they could do over 400 units. The hundred and fifty is relatively low. It puts them at the 55 unit per acre mark versus 150 units per acre, so it's come in at a density that is much lower than as permissible. We're not talking FAR now. We're talking numbers of units. The FAR what that does was it makes the units bigger. The units here are two, three and four thousand square feet. These are very large units. Commissioner Sanchez: One more, Grove Hill -- it's irrelevant. Forget it. It's irrelevant. I withdraw. Chairman Winton: Any other -- yes sir, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Lourdes, what was it first that the Planning Board or the Zoning Board? Which? Ms. Slazyk: It went to the Zoning Board first, the special exception component goes to the Zoning Board, and then the Planning Advisory Board sees it after that, and all their recommendations come to you. Commissioner Regalado: So, what happened in between? I mean, it was unanimous on the Zoning Board, and then it was sort of a tie in the Planning Advisory Board. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEML__tON3a9o-r. 232 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: The Planning Advisory -- they were torn. I mean, it was one of those where I think they acknowledged that it was a well designed building and I think some of the same concerns that the residents raised here was you know, the board members were considering the same concerns. Commissioner Regalado: OK, thank you. Chairman Winton: Anyone else? Tucker you wanted the right to cross-examine staff. I think we're all finished with questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs: Lourdes, I'll make this -- I have a couple questions. The pyramid that you talked about in the comprehensive plan, can you tell us what the hierarchy of that pyramid is? Mr. Maxwell: I think, Mr. Gibbs, I think Ms. Slazyk said pyramid in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Gibbs: She said comp plan and that's what I'm asking about, pyramiding in the comp plan. Ms. Slazyk: Well it's in the order of their appearance in the comp plan. I don't know if I can name every single category off the top of my head, but it says that it's arranged in the -- in a pyramid order so, when they begin they get increasingly -- it increases. Mr. Gibbs: Does it say that it's in that particular order within the comprehensive plan? Ms. Slazyk: I'd have to read it. I'm sorry I don't have -- Mr. Gibbs: That's all right. Ms. Slazyk: If it says it, it either says it or it doesn't. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Ms. Slazyk: The interpretation has been that that's the order because they increase it in intensity and in density you know, from R-1 to R-2 to R-3 to R-4. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. Thank you. The other question that I had is you said the maximum -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me, what -- Ms. Slazyk: The word subsequent is in there. Mr. Gibbs: Ms. Dougherty mentioned that the word subsequent is in there and my question is what does subsequent mean as in the context of that? I just don't know. Do you have any idea what that means in that context? Ms. Slazyk: Again, I mean, the interpretation has been the order in which they appear each one SL!BMITTED aain it dds uses, it adds density and adds intensity and they move up in that order, and then, INTO THE PUBLICRECORD FOR 233 January 23, 2003 ITEM i, 3 ON 34'? -oo . unless a use is specifically excluded in a category like when you get to industrial, which residential is specifically excludes. Mr. Gibbs: Ask a question here, how do you, as a planner, distinguish between government institutional and office use? What makes them different? Ms. Slazyk: The government institutional just adds more uses that are not in office. All of the uses that are allowed in office are allowed in governmental institutional but then governmental institutional adds a series of other uses that are of a more public or institutional nature such as hospitals and jails and major universities. Mr. Gibbs: So, could some of those uses that are office uses I mean, government uses be in the office category if they were not government owned or operated or institutionally owned or operated? Ms. Slazyk: Not unless the use was specifically listed in the zoning ordinance. In other words, you can have a government office if it's just an administrative office government office can be permitted in the 0 district. However, the specific uses listed in GI like jails and hospitals and those can not be reciprocated in the office but pure office use you know, in the comp plan one of the things you actually mentioned and I forgot to put this in the record, you talked about the ownership that's not what it actually says. Mr. Tucker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ms. Slazyk: Well, it was, I guess Mark Alvarez mentioned the ownership that the GI category or the institutional category is the one category that goes to who owns the facility. What it actually says is areas designated as major institutional public facilities, transportation and utilities allow facilities for federal, state and local government et cetera, et cetera. it doesn't mandate that they have to be owned. Mr. Tucker: But it's owned or controlled. Would you agree with that? Ms. Slazyk: It doesn't have to be. Mr. Gibbs: I understand that, I understand what you are saying. You will, OK -- you mentioned that this cannot happen. Commissioner Winton asked if this could happen in other places. This can't happen for example in a GI district like Ransom Everglades Middle School; and you said, it can't happen, because? Ms. Slazyk: It's not automatic that's not what I said. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Ms. Slazyk: What I said was it was not automatic. It can be applied for, yes, but it is not automatic, because a special exception is required for the introduction of any new use, it will go SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ON3—r7_a. 234 January 23, 2003 through the review case by case utilizing the criteria, and that's one where this building would not be approved there. This one is coming in the context of other high rises. Mr. Gibbs: In terms of the criteria, you had mentioned that the criteria that you had examined that the Planning Department had examined this project when it was at 40 stories you had rejected it and it was appropriated at 31. Why did the criteria fit at 31 but not at 40? What was the rationale? Ms. Slazyk: I explained it already, but it went to the changes in design. They stepped it down. They changed the footprint. They changed the configuration. They changed the setbacks on the property. All of those things led to a final product that was appropriate. Mr. Gibbs: How does that relate to the office district and the issue of the office district in GI? Ms. Slazyk: I don't understand. Mr. Gibbs: In other words, the reason why this use is allowed in GI is because it's part of an office designation for permitted use, so how does that relate to the office use, is what I'm asking. How does those issues, the chevron, the design, the setback, how do those relate to the office use? I'm trying to get at what standards did you use, specific standards that you used to say that it was OK at 31, but not OK at 40? Ms. Slazyk: I'm not sure I'm understanding what -- Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Slazyk, you can simply respond you don't understand his question. Mr. Gibbs: OK, thank you. You mentioned that the PUD criteria -- the PUD bonus criteria is the same criteria for the MUSP. Ms. Slazyk: That's not the only criteria. Mr. Gibbs: OK, can you explain to me what the other criteria is that was utilized in this application? Ms. Slazyk: The other criteria for the PUD that was utilized was how does this project, in its design and the enhanced level of amenities and all of those things, how, if it creates a living product that has the enhanced level of amenities and design. And again, because of the increase setbacks, and the trees, and the landscape and all of that and the recreation facilities that were provided, it was deemed to qualify. Mr. Gibbs: Are those standards in the code and where are they? Ms. Slazyk: Article five has the standards on the amenities for the PUD. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR rON 3 -.)(1--C7 235 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gibbs: Specifically, can you give me a section in article -- Chairman Winton: No, now Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: No. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me, Mr. City Attorney, would you tell me whether or not this kind of detail is required and whether or not we have to continue, I mean, sit through this? Mr. Maxwell: Cross-examination, he should be addressing himself to the issues specifically addressed by Ms. Slazyk. If she didn't raise that, if she didn't raise those sections, she hasn't raised those sections. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Maxwell, can I ask you a question? Mr. Maxwell: You can ask the question, she doesn't have that information -- Mr. Gibbs: Absolutely, she doesn't have to answer me, I have to ask the question though, but the questions were asked by Commissioner Winton. I'm literally going down that list and I'm trying to find out what's going on here, and I think I have a right in cross examination, to find her basis for her answers to Commissioner Winton, and that's all I'm trying to do. Chairman Winton: Does he or does he not? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Mr. Gibbs: And I'm almost completed, but I have to establish a record here. I have to. I do. The issue of -- Ms. Slazyk: I don't know the section. Mr. Gibbs: OK, thank you and that all -- Mr. Maxwell: Be sure that you're speaking into the microphone. Chairman Winton: Yes, that was not on the -- Mr. Slazyk: I don't know the section number by heart. Mr. Gibbs: You said that affordable housing, the bonus was set in the 1980's. Does the City Commission have the right to reject the bonuses? Ms. Slazyk: The City Commission can reject a major use special permit that grants the bonus if they find that the project does not comply with the criteria. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM1tON:7M. 236 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gibbs: So, it's an all or nothing, is what you're saying? Ms. Slazyk: I don't understand the question. Mr. Gibbs: OK, I appreciate that. All right, thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Lucia, you have a shot. Ms. Dougherty: I just have one question for Ms. Slazyk. Lourdes, if the City Commission wanted to protect Ransom Everglades or any other GI institutional zoning category, could they propose amendments which were not be down -zonings that were protected? Ms. Slazyk: Absolutely. There you can always add more criteria, you can always amend the zoning ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City. That's part of -- Ms. Dougherty: Let me just read you a zoning ordinance from the City of Miami Beach and this is for their GU. It says the development regulations -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty. Mr. Gibbs: I object to that, I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: I want to propose this as a solution to this issue that he raised. Chairman Winton: But is has -- Mr. Maxwell: But you're cross-examining right now, it's questions that -- Ms. Dougherty: I want to ask her a question if this is something that could be adopted in the City of Miami and would this add some more protection. Mr. Gibbs: That's speculative. It has nothing to do with this issue. I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: It does have -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman I don't think it's relevant -- Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, you need to make a determination here so I can -- Mr. Maxwell: I don't think Mr. Dougherty, in all fairness, I don't think that that's relevant. You've asked Ms. Slazyk a question -- Ms. Dougherty: Then I'll ask another question. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM a 'A'ON 237 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: -- that was as subject of discussion between Commissioners. Ms. Dougherty: Could the City -- Chairman Winton: Next point. Ms. Dougherty: Could the City to stop this issue of whether or not a high rise development could be in Ransom Everglades School, could the City adopt a regulation that would simply say that the -- if a GI institutional use is sold, that it would revert to zoning districts that -- average of the zoning district surrounding it? Ms. Slazyk: The City can amend its zoning ordinance. I don't now if that's the -- I don't know enough about that particular solution to know if that works -- that would be a law department question. Ms. Dougherty: But it can -- Ms. Slazyk: You have the right to amend your zoning ordinance -- Ms. Dougherty: To prohibit -- Ms. Slazyk: To protect -- yeah. Mr. Maxwell: She's asked, she's answered. Ms. Dougherty: -- adverse affect -- Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: She's answered the question. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Chairman Winton: OK, anything else. Ms. Dougherty: No, sir. Chairman Winton: OK, do we have, anyone else from the -- let's see the public part -- so, we are closing the public hearing portion of this. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: May I preside? SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM{'�3 ON 3-€Y7-0. 238 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Vice Chairman Teele: You're recognized. Chairman Winton: When I came in here today and as we all know none of us are allowed to and I think frankly this Commission does a heck of a job at following the Jennings Rule and we don't talk to anybody, and the fact -- and it's really interesting because I think the word is out, so even friends don't call, which that's the good part of this, so the only information that I had in front of me when I walked in was conversation with staff and the book here. And when I walked in it was -- and whether we like it or not you still form opinions when you start off the process even though you know, you haven't heard all the -- your going to form an opinion. That's just human nature, and I had an opinion formed and that opinion was I'm going to have more constituents mad at me then I can imagine because they're going to be here. I know they coming in, I hear they are coming in with opposition because I didn't understand the premise of all of their arguments and I looked at the book and frankly there are a number of parts to this project that are very attractive to me in my opinion and included in that is the fact that is going to be 150 high - end condominium units, which has absolutely the least impact in terms of traffic and intrusion as any kind of project that you can have because you all know in these high-rise condos that a very significant percentage of the owns of those condos don't even live there, so the difference between a 409-unit apartment building and 150-unit high -end condominium project there is no comparison in my mind, zero. When I looked at the height and the angles and the density I wasn't particularly bothered by all of that. Tonight we were forced to suffer through this long conversation about these technical legal issues. I don't pretend to understand all of these particular issues even at this -- I think I have a pretty good understanding, but I'm not sure I'm right, and I'm not trained to be the major arbiter of whether the technical question that Tucker's posing versus the technical question that Lucia's posing versus the technical answer that our Planning staff is getting. They all sound good to me. I don't know, I'm not trained to be the interpreter of that kind stuff. So, how do I make my decision? I have to make my decision based on what I'm read, what I'm looking at, my own logic, my own opinion because that's what yall elected me to do, and then your thoughts, your comments. And one of the awful parts about this job is that nothing's ever black and white. Nothing's ever all the way over here and all the way over there. If it was, this job would be a piece of cake and we'd be in and out of here in two hours instead of the 12 or 13 we always spend in this place. But as I listen to the arguments of the neighbors, and it wasn't just the arguments of the neighbors, it was the number of people that came from all over the neighborhoods. This wasn't -- this turned out not to be just a few of the automatic, I don't want anymore high-rise people and many of those people are my friends. We all know that we've agreed to disagree but it turned out that it wasn't just that group of people that I know well who were opposed to the density of this project. We have done something at this Commission over and over and over again with great success. And one of the things that we've done with great success is that we've continued these kinds of discussions where there's this big gap between the folks and ask the developer to get back together with the neighborhood people and come back in 30 days or 60 days or some short period of time like that and bring something back and we have always make a commitment as a Commission that we will vote on way or another at the end of the day on whatever comes back. And I want to make another point about that process and when we vote, when it comes back, up or down, and if I think back kind SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 239 ITEM niz January 23, 2003 of the history of it, I don't remember many that have been voted down since I got elected. And I also want to point out the fact that I probably voted against more developments than all of the rest of my colleagues combined, so I've been pretty disciplined and tough about this development stuff. This one I'm a little more, I don't know what the exact right answer is, but I do think that this process of sending everybody back and making them see if you can't get some better compromise here may be valuable, but I would like to point out something to the neighborhood people. One of the ladies stood up and talked about -- somebody did -- talked about the abomination on 27th and US-1 or 22" and US-1, whatever that is, that office building. That was done long before anyone of us got here, but I remember Willie Gort pointing that over and over again and I remember me reading about it over and over again and that was that the original proposal for that site was tons less density than what ended up there and I don't think anybody should lose sight of the fact that maybe you can't build 490 apartment units on that site at some point, but you could probably build with the lower density of SD-12 or 19 whatever that number is, you probably are going to end up being able to build 300 or 350 apartment units there. You want to talk about impact? You want to talk about impact of the quality of life in your neighborhood with all those people that will live in those units, will drive on the roads, will have a direct impact on your lives? So, think about that. That is a very real possibility on this site that could happen, could happen easily. I'm going to recommend, my motion is going to be that we continue this for 30 days to the next P and Z meeting, or the next 60 days and you know I want to hear a little bit of input from the rest of my commissioners on that. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: And instruct everybody to go back and bring back a modified plan that we hope we can vote on that satisfies everyone. Vice Chairman Teele: All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Is there a discussion? They're being no discussion, Madam Clerk, call the roll. Mr. Maxwell: That's for 60 days, correct? Ms. Dougherty: We would request a 30 days. Vice Chairman Teele: 60 days without additional notice, without additional notice. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, we would request 30 days and if we need 60 days after that, then we would request it but we would ask for 30 days. Chairman Winton: Well, I think that -- I think that everybody's pretty focused on this issue so I would accept 30 days at the moment and if you have to have -- if y'all decide you have to have some more then we' 11 entertain that so. Mr. Gibbs: That's fine. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMj'QN 3-4>ri-o7 240 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: All right the motion has been modified to provide for a deferral- a continuance for 30 days. What would be the exact date, Madam Clerk, the second meeting in February? Ms. Thompson: Second meeting in February will be Thursday, February the 27th Vice Chairman Teele: Was there a time anybody would like to have this? Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners, can we have a time certain 5 o'clock, 5:30? Commissioner Sanchez: 5:30. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Well, you know, wait, wait, wait, don't forget guys. We're moving this agenda along pretty quickly. We had our first ever break here in the afternoon because we didn't have anything to do so, I wouldn't mind a five. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you want to afford people the opportunity to come from work, I mean, a half-hour to get here. Mr. Gibbs: That's going to be an issue. Chairman Winton: 5:30. Mr. Gibbs: I assume it's not going to be in the Commission chambers. Chairman Winton: No, we won't be back in the Commission Chambers for another year. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you all. Vice Chairman Teele: 5:30 unless otherwise. Chairman Winton: Right here. Vice Chairman Teele: It will be at this location. Commissioner Sanchez: Don't bet on it, Tucker, don't bet on it. Chairman Winton: Manuel Artime. Vice Chairman Teele: Is there anyone else that needs to be heard on the deferral? If not, Madam Clerk, now we've got -- Commissioner Sanchez: We're done. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMJ.11);.•PN 241 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: They'll be no further notice. They'll be no further notice of the item. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-124 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO 5:30 P.M. DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER PUBLIC NOTICE; FURTHER REQUESTING THE DEVELOPER TO MEET WITH THE AREA RESIDENTS AND BRING BACK A MODIFIED, NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Teele: It's unanimous to defer the item. Mr. Chairman, I yield. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 57. DIRECT MANAGER TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH MAYOR'S OFFICE OF FILM, ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT TO OBTAIN IN -KIND SUPPORT, WAIVERS OF PERMIT AND POLICE FEES AND $5,000 GRANT FROM SPECIAL EVENTS FUND TO SUPPORT LOCAL FILM PROJECT, PRODUCED BY AMY SERRANO, TO SHOWCASE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF MIAMI CULTURE. Chairman Winton: I think we're done with all of our agenda items both the regular items and the PZ agenda and I think the only -- and our blue pages. I think the only thing remaining -- Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: -- would be pocket items, if anyone has any. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM" ON 3I.2-9I0-i. 242 January 23, 2003 GROVENOR CITY COMMISSION HEARING TRANSCRIPT February 27, 2003 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMON3-afi-oi An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE NO. 40 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM (R-2) "TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO (G/I) "GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL" FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2731 SOUTHWEST 16TH TERRACE AND 2750 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 23, 2003, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice Chairman Teele. The ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following votes: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12327. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted on second reading, 4/0. 39. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GROVENOR PROJECT AT 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 24, 2003, WITH A TIME CERTAIN OF 5:30 P.M. Chairman Winton: OK. PZ-27. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ-27 is a major use special permit for the Grovenor Project located at 2610 Tigertail Avenue. This will allow 151 residential units with accessory recreational space and 409 parking spaces. This was continued from the City Commission meeting of January 23`d. The Planning Department recommendation is for approval with conditions. It was also recommended -- it was recommended for denial by the Planning Advisory Board from a motion which failed due to a failure to obtain the majority favorable su1ffbhIN f0 TI1Eet PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ON 31=rdn• 181 February 27, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes, ma'am, and what we would like -- this is a continuation of an item so I think you can -- what's the technical term? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): You can incorporate the referenced information from the previous hearing instead of repeating it. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, we incorporate. Chairman Winton: So we don't have to hear it all again, OK? Lucia? Lucia Dougherty: Good evening. Lucia Dougherty, 1221 Brickell Avenue, joined today by my partner, Adrienne Pardo and Zoning Consultant, Rosario Kennedy. Also, with us this evening, is Lester Miller, Bruce Weiner who are the principals of the project; Lugo Colombo is on his way and their colleague, Art Murphy. At the last meeting we made a full presentation which I would like to incorporate the record of that presentation into this hearing. Since that period of time, we've met with the Civic Association to try to resolve many of our issues. Unfortunately, there were no settlement that were reached. Both sides, I know worked very hard and very diligently and attempted to settle all of the issues, but I think that there is just a basic philosophical disagreement. We do believe however, and we do hope that even after -- if we were to be fortunate enough to have your favorable vote, I do believe we could continue to talk with our -- with the Civic Club. I just wanted to remind you that there were 152 high end condominium units and not 490 residential units that could be here. The project has a very highly respected developer, Hugo Colombo who has a wonderful track record in the City of Miami as a high -end quality developer. The project has a great architect, Luis Revuelta that you know from the Bristol Tower and the Santa Maria. The Grovenor has reached settlement with both our immediate neighbors, the Grove Hill Association -- the Grove Hill Condominium Association and Oradio Holdings which is the owner of 2601 South Bayshore Drive. It's a chevron shaped building that is set back 137 feet from South Bayshore Drive, which it could be only 20 feet and it's much further back than either of our two neighbors. It's set back 128 feet from Tigertail with a 1 story garage which is the same size of a single family house and it sets back 305 feet on the tower from Tigertail. There are no entrances to Tigertail. The side jars [sic] are 10 feet and that happens to be part of the problem that the Civic Association has with the site, but I want you to know that the SD17 that they believe should be the proper zoning for it only has a 10 feet set back. The building is so far set back, vis-a-vis our neighbors however, this does not create a wall and the chevron shape you may recall from the last meeting, also mitigates against having a so- called wall on South Bayshore Drive. We again feel disappointed that we were unable reach settlement with our neighbors and we will continue to try to work with them should we have a favorable vote this evening. With that I would like to conclude our presentation and ask for a few minutes of rebuttal if that should be appropriate. Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Gibbs? Tucker Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs, with offices of Gibbs and Weiss of 215 Grand Avenue in Coconut Grove. I'd like to also incorporate into the record everything that was said on our SUBMI11EDblf both me and Mr. Alvarez our planning expert as well as the testimony of all other INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 182 February 27, 2003 ITEM 'J,3 ON 3 ���,, public that was present at the last meeting and remind the board that the key issue for us is this is a project that is too big on South Bayshore Drive. What we want is a project that is compatible with the existing zoning on South Bayshore Drive. That this piece of property is zoned government/institutional and this isn't a government or institutional use and it takes advantage of two -- we consider -- unconstitutional bonuses -- density bonuses, your affordable housing bonus as well as your planned unit development bonus and we've discussed those at the last meeting. I know that there are several people from the public who are here to speak on it and I will defer to them. Thank you. Chairman Winton: OK, is the part of the expert testimony or are we getting into the -- Suzanne Peters: No, this is public. Mr. Gibbs: Our expert testimony is proffered at the last meeting by a report by Mr. Alvarez. Chairman Winton: OK. Public hearing -- and those of you, all of you from the public that are going to speak I would appreciate it if you all would just come up, line up at each microphone. Get in line. Comments -- I hope that we don't hear redundancy in the volunteer comments -- I mean in the community comments and each speaker will be limited to two minutes. All yours. Ms. Peters: Thank you. Suzanne Peters, 2848 Chicanonta, Coconut Grove. I'm here, I'm the Chairman of the Coconut Grove Village Council. The Village Council passed a resolution opposing this project in its current form. There are a number of reasons why we're opposed to this project. The building is going to be 345 feet tall although the surrounding zoning only permits 220 feet of height. The building is only set back 10 feet. With that sort of height, it is very closely flanking and there's a great fear that this will create a wall along South Bayshore Drive. The building design, quite frankly from what I have seen, is unimaginative and you know our Grove skyline should really be something that's beautiful and that we're proud of and we don't need another Ritz Carlton. I've seen it from the water and it's really a shame. I believe someone from the Council requested plans but we've never received them. We have not been part of the negotiations with the developer and so we haven't had a presentation from them so I can't say that I've looked at the plans myself beyond the other information that I've been provided but we did attempt to obtain that. Most importantly, I think the problem here is the governmental institutional zoning. This really is a slippery slope. I hope that we'll move forward to prevent this from happening in the future and have an ordinance that prevents having a non -governmental institutional use that takes advantage of that zoning, but I would really urge you at this point not to head down that slippery slope and begin that descent. Personally that's -- you know I also feel that I just want to urge you to do the right thing. A lot of residents are interested in this issue and take it seriously and although it's happening in the Grove, it can happen in all of your districts as well. I've also been asked by the Center Grove Neighborhood Association, the couldn't be here but they have a statement that they wanted to have me get on the record for them. This is addressed to Commissioner Winton. On behalf of the Center Grove Neighborhood Association, "we do not approve the Grovenor Project as it is presently scaled or sized. We ask that you take our associations position into account when considering the merits of this project this evening. If you, Jason or Frank wish to further discuss our position on this SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM'iON 3 a9-o,. 183 February 27, 2003 project, we will make ourselves available," and that is from Mark Sernon. With that, I will urge you to please consider rejecting this application and I will leave you with that. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Don't be -- the microphone is not going to bite you, I promise, so use both mikes, line up, be ready standing behind the next person and go. Ron Nelson: I'm absolutely ready it's just that there was only one commissioner that was listening at the time. My name is Ron Nelson, 2535 Inagua Avenue, Coconut Grove: President of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. Just for record as we just heard, the Village Council, the Center Grove Homeowners Association, The Coconut Grove Park Homeowner's Association which is directly behind it, are all opposed to this project so that's a pretty good chunk of the organizations in Coconut Grove that are active and participate on a regular basis in the community. Not just the, Coconut Grove Civic Club. She mentioned the intent and Tucker mentioned the intent of GI zoning. We feel the intent is for government or institutional. This is not government nor institutional, nor ancillary to, so again, you have the opportunity to do the right thing. It's located on a historic and scenic corridor, I believe it's Bayshore Drive and on a property that unfortunately probably should have been designated historic, the Naval Reserve Center. The ball was dropped on that by the City, we believe as well. Anyway, we're in the position we are now. This property has been left alone for a long time so it has some fabulous large trees on the property. One to mention that has not been talked about much, but I would like to make sure that it is remembered. If you stand on Bayshore Drive face the property and look at it, on the left hand side starting from Bayshore about a third of the way up the property is a Banyon tree that covers approximately 31,000 square feet of canopy. This is a tremendous tree and I'm really surprised that our historic preservation officer did not speak about this, instead had no comment. We had a tree survey done. Chairman Winton: Ron, that's your two minutes, so can you wrap this up? Mr. Nelson: Yes. We had a tree survey done and we will have our tree expert come up and speak on the issue. Chairman Winton: Thank you, next. Linda Ettie: I'm Linda Ettie from 2575 South Bayshore Drive. I am with -- where I live within 500 feet of the proposed project and I would just like to add to Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Nelson that are there. We have looked at everything that we could look at possibly and we feel that this building is not suitable for that area and it will cause even more traffic, although you begin to wonder how can there be more on Bayshore Drive; but that's exactly what's going to happen. I would appreciate it if you voted against this project. Chris Brock: My name is Chris Brock, I live at 2545 Lincoln Avenue in the Grove. I can see the project from my house and again, I was here at the last meeting and I said before and will reiterate, if the alternative comes about which I think is a possibility of having 500 or 450 units with people that will probably be there all the time in our neighborhood is going to create more traffic than we could ever even imagine. If we think it's bad now it's going to get worse, so I understand the issues that maybe they think it's too big or -- you know, I'm a neighbor too and SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ON 3 >r)o-1. 184 February 27, 2003 I'm not trying to pick sides, but I think it's -- for me, because I'm that close, I don't want 500 people running around my neighborhood. I just don't, so I'm for the project. Chairman Winton: Yes, ma'am. Nina West: My name is Nina West, I live at 176 North East 44 Street, which is Buena Vista, Historic District in the City of Miami. I'm very concerned with GI Institutional zoning being bought by private developers. I believe it sets a precedent. The corridor for Biscayne Boulevard is going to be developed. I sincerely hope that we will not be overshadowed and never see the daylight as I think will happen to the neighbors in Coconut Grove, so I am here to support these people because I fear G1 is everywhere and if we ever did a survey of what the City can sell and might wish to sell we might all be in the same position. Thank you. Joyce Nelson: Joyce Nelson, 2535 Inagua and I would like to say that first, I am extremely disappointed. We only have two people listening to us. We have spent many, many, hours and days negotiating, including Saturdays and Sundays and evenings and although there aren't 200 people in this room, there are 200 people that participated by email, by phone calls, by talking to us and saying that they do not want this project, so I am extremely disappointed in this Commission. Jim McMaster: Jim McMaster, 2940 Southwest 30th Court. I'm President of the Grove Treeman Trust. The Trust is dedicated to preserving the tree canopy of Coconut Grove. I've been president of the Trust about two years. This is the first issue that I have appeared before you as President of the Trust opposing the tree issue. The Trust -- I am very careful, we don't appear on every issue but this is an important issue. We have been talking to the owners. They've been very cooperative. They let us on the property to look at the trees. We still have some outstanding concerns. The Planning Department, their recommendation recommends that 65 and 66 be preserved. The owners have redesigned the front access drive around these trees but we don't really have elevations yet. It's an elevated driveway. We really don't have any assurances that these two trees are being saved. There are other major trees on the property that they are proposing to either cut down or transplant that we would like retained in site. Lisa Hammer is going to give a brief statement about a report she's written on the property. I just gave a copy of the report to Adrienne Pardo and I will give a copy to City staff and the Trust does reserve the right to appeal the tree removal permits, when the property owner does come in for building permits because they will still have to come in for tree removal permits. Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Just for the record, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Teele at all times during this discussion has been at the dia -- on the podium here. He stepped away out of view of the cameras for a second but he was still here. Is that correct,. Commissioner? He indicates that's correct, just for the record. Chairman Winton: Yes, ma'am. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEmaliD-ON 3-aa-07. 185 February 27, 2003 Lisa Hammer: Good evening. My name is Lisa Hammer. I'm a horticultural consultant and a consultant arborist. My address is P.O. Box 1551 in Homestead. I was retained by the Grove Treeman Trust to do an evaluation of the trees on this site. I was out there on October 15 of 2002. I looked at all of trees out there. I numbered each one. Identified them, measured their sizes, their height spread and trunk diameters. I evaluated the conditions of each one and I did a dollar value appraisal on selected trees. There was a total of 87 trees on the property as shown on a survey -- a boundary survey provided by ER Bronell and Associates. Out of those 87 trees, I recommended preservation of nine trees. There were six live oaks, one gumbo limbo and two lofty figs that are commonly referred to as banyons. It looks to me like on the plan that the applicant is proposing, they're proposing preservation of five trees; three live oaks, one gumbo limbo and one of the big ficus trees. They are proposing to relocate three of the live oaks that I recommended for preservation, and removing one of the ficus trees that I recommended for preservation. Of the five oaks to be preserved -- I'm sorry of the five trees total to be preserved that they're proposing, three of them are oaks and two of those three are the ones in the driveway that Jim was talking about where they are proposing to keep it at grade but they're building a raised driveway and portico-chos (phonetic) around it. I think there are still some questions as to whether there's going to be adequate clearance for the canopy of those trees. I appreciate their efforts to keep it grade and not put fill around them, but I think that with the portico-chos (phonetic) there, there still may be some concern about how much canopy pruning is going to be required on those trees. There were three live oaks specified for relocation. Two of them may be far enough away from the proposed building to preserve them. I think that still warrants some discussion and revisiting the trees and looking at where the canopies are and so forth, but it may be possible to save two of those three. I really prefer not to relocate large live oaks if we can avoid it. They don't survive very well. It's generally not recommended unless you follow very, very stringent guidelines for doing so, one of which is time of year, winter time. Also the two large ficuses that I recommended for preservation, these are highly visible from Biscayne Boulevard -- Bayshore Drive, excuse me. They're beautiful trees, they are in excellent condition. They're proposing to keep one and remove one. I think they're both worthy of preservation. They're proposing preserving two other trees in that same location, the strangler fig and a Poinciana which are really basically very, very poor condition. I would rather see them preserver the lofty fig rather than those two trees. Chairman Winton: So do you have a specific proposal that we could understand. I mean I'm not very clear on what you're recommending, so could you be very clear and tell us what you're proposing here? Ms. Hammer: What I'm saying is that out of nine trees that I've recommended for preservation, they're only recommending preservation of five, and I think two of those five deserve a little more consideration as to how the proposed construction will affect them. I think they're recommending relocation of three and of those three we need to look at two of them and determine whether or not they need to be preserved instead of relocated, and I would like to see preservation of both of those big ficus trees, but I don't know what -- what the parties have come to on that. Chairman Winton: Thank you, thank you. I understand. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM e'; ON31>� )r7. 186 February 27, 2003 Chairman Winton: Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Kate Terry: Yes, My name is Kate Terry, 1896 Tigertail. I live in Coconut Grove. I'm here tonight to represent the 350 residents of the North Grove Homeowners Association. Because of where the meeting is it is very difficult. A lot of our members are elderly and have trouble finding it. A lot of people have spoken tonight. I hope everyone up there is listening. I see that we are missing a couple of people but what's really important here is this is the gem of the City, Coconut Grove and Bayshore Drive. I think you all really need to search your conscience and look at what Bayshore Drive means to Coconut Grove. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. To have this wall with a so-called veer or whatever they're calling it. I don't know if you all have seen the model but the V is -- I'm not sure what the degrees are but it's basically a wall. It is way too tall. You know that it is too tall. From the water, we will look like any other downtown condominium -- I don't even want to say. That is not what Coconut Grove is about. We already have high-rises that are inappropriate and none of us are proud of them. None of us. We look at them and we go, how did that happen? Alright, so this is what's important right now. This is a very emotional issue. For 17 years we've been fighting to save Bayshore Drive. I don't know if you guys are that old, but I am. I want to tell you, we need to look at this. The building needs to be shorter. The trees need to be preserved. They are so important, and the whole thing needs to be under consideration by you all, and seriously, I'm sorry if this is hard to hear, but this is your gem. This is what people come to see. They do not come to Coconut Grove to see skyscrapers. They are in Downtown Miami, and they look great there. OK? Everybody with us? Terrific. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your listening. James Jude: Mr. Winton, Commissioners. My name is James Jude. 111 Southwest 5th Avenue, also Coral Gables because that's where my business is. I have driven for years past this site and of course remember it as the Coast Guard Station and it was a big battle over at that time to try to preserve it as a park or historic building. That was unfortunately lost. Here's an opportunity for you to -- and Mr. Teele, we know you're interested in parks, I think you all are -- to purchase this land, I don't know why it wasn't originally purchased by the City and make it a park. It's a jewel and the banyan trees, I wasn't going to speak until I heard about all these beautiful trees, and I love banyan trees, and I think you do, too. That's what visitors look for and as I look at the sign up there, it says keep the sun shining, this is what we're here for. If we're going to look like any other city, there's no reason for people to come here. I've watched Coconut Grove morph from a beautiful little city into what it is today. It still has some beauty remaining, so if there is any way you can make it a park, keep it. Keep it in its history. Well there's a way you would go down in history as being one of the great Commissioners and the commissions that ever existed. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Anyone else? Anyone else from the public? Sue Martin: Yes. Chairman Winton: Well, as I said before, if you're going to speak would you all please come to the microphone so that we can keep it moving. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM"-_ON3-o7. 187 February 27, 2003 Ms. Martin: Sony about that John, but I just changed my mind. I wasn't going to say anything. I was up here at the last meeting and I'm a little old lady in tennis shoes and I'm back again. I live on Blaine Street. I will look out my front door and I'm going to see -- at first it was going to be 40 stories now how tall is going to be now. How tall is going to be? Unidentified Speaker: Thirty-three. Ms. Martin: Thirty-three stories. How tall is the Terremark building? Chairman Winton: I'm sorry, you need to put your name and address on the record, please. Ms. Martin: OK. My name is Sue Martin. I live at 3017 Blaine Street, Coconut Grove, 33133. I'm sorry, I forgot protocol. How tall is the Terremark? Twenty -something? No, Terremark is not 305 feet and how tall is this building going to be? Chairman Winton: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, just address the Commission, please. Ms. Martin: OK, I object to the size and scope of the project as vehemently as I did the last time I was here. That's all I have to say. Chairman Winton: Is there anyone else from the public? Being no one else, we'll close the public hearing. What's that? Commissioner Sanchez: Motion. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele or Vice Chairman Teele would you chair? Vice Chairman Teele: Be pleased to recognize you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: I represent this district. I know probably fairly well most of the people who were here the last time speaking on this issue. In our packet as usual we always receive the information relative to the P&Z Items and as I looked at the project through my eyes and understanding that you could end up with a much worse project there, I felt, coming in that I would support this PZ item, but I thought about it at length. When I listened to all of the organizations from the Grove who have taken this issue up and voted on this issue as entities like the Civic Club and the different homeowners association and the Village Council, it dawned on me that there was a very strong message across a lot boundaries relative to the Grove and people felt very strongly about this issue. Now as a Commissioner, and you all know that, I've never been afraid to say no or battle with anybody, including my constituents, if I felt it was the right thing to do from a public policy standpoint and I still feel this way, but in this regard, this is about a building. It isn't a public policy. It's a building and so as I thought about it, I came to the conclusion that I did get elected to represent the views of my constituents on most all issues that come before this Commission -- don't clap, please -- and that's what my job is. It doesn't mean that I won't vote against my constituents' wishes and you all have seen me do that many times in the past if I felt strongly about it from a public policy standpoint, but as I said, this isn't a public policy issue. This is about a building on a site that the neighborhood -- the whole SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM :, ON 3ir)1°,, 188 February 27, 2003 community feels very strongly about, so as a consequence, I'm not going to support this application and I will make a motion to deny -- Mr. Maxwell: You want to deny or approve the application? Chairman Winton: No, I don't want to approve, I want to deny. Mr. Maxwell: You want to deny the application. Chairman Winton: So I will make a motion to deny this application. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Vice Chairman Teele: All those in favor -- Ms. Dougherty: May I speak on the motion -- Vice Chairman Teele: Excuse, me? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: You know the rules, Counsel. Ms. Dougherty: No, I never got to rebut anything, for one thing. I asked for a reservation of rebuttal and one of -- Vice Chairman Teele: You absolutely have the right to rebut the witnesses as a presenter, is that correct Mr. Attorney? Ms. Dougherty: But they closed the public hearing before I even got the chance to do that. Vice Chairman Teele: I apologize. Mr. Maxwell: I didn't hear counsel ask to reserve a rebuttal on this. Ms. Dougherty: I did. Chairman Winton: She did. Mr. Maxwell: She did? Chairman Winton: She did. Vice Chairman Teele: She has a right. She has an absolute legal right to do it and whether she asked for it, the courts would recognize it, so. You can not extend the time of the people who made the argument against it and you must confine your remarks to the testimony in rebuttal. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 1" TEMo-,;; ON s-» 03 February 27, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: Well what I think is appropriate is for me to withdraw the second. Open it up, let her rebut, then we'll take the action, so I withdraw my second. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, the status quo is returned. The motion is withdrawn and Mr. Chairman you may preside if you like. Chairman Winton: So you are going to rebut? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, I want to rebut. The fact that -- Chairman Winton: You may. Ms. Dougherty: We had a Center Grove Association, a Coconut Grove Park Association the Village Council say to you and that's one of the reasons you would make a motion to deny it. We have worked literally for two years on this project. We have been through every board and commission that you can possibly imagine. We went to a pre-ap board, we went to a large scale development committee meeting, we went to a zoning board hearing, a planning advisory board hearing. We had a large scale community meeting, not once, but more than once. We have staff's recommendations of approval. We have the zoning board recommendation of approval. We have the planning advisory board in a three to three motion. We have -- I have a list of 27 meeting and or public hearings that we've had. We've never had the opportunity frankly because we worked very hard with our neighbors who are both supporting this project. We worked very, very hard with all of our neighbors. We've met with the Treeman Trust any number of times but we never have met with the Coconut Grove Village Council and no one ever asked for our plans from them. We didn't meet with the Coconut Grove Park Association. I doubt they've seen the plans. The Center Grove Association has never seen the plans, so you're going to make a motion, this evening Chairman Winton, based on the fact that these -- you -- there's broad support from these associations and I doubt that they've seen the plans. I know we've never made a presentation to them, so I would only ask that you would allow us to do that before you make a motion in this respect. Commissioner Sanchez: Have these associations had an opportunity to see these plans? Mr. Nelson: I'll come back up and answer that -- Mr. Maxwell: Wait, you don't have to do that. You don't have to go back and forth. Chairman Winton: Wait, wait, wait, wait. We're not going to reopen the public hearing, so. Mr. Nelson: OK, I was just answering his question. Chairman Winton: OK. Don't answer. So, OK. Ms. Dougherty: It is amazing to me that we would get to the point that we would have to start all over again after two and a half years and investment in trying to do the right thing with respect SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ON 190 February 27, 2003 to our neighbors especially, that we would reach a point where you wouldn't at least ask us to meet with them again. Chairman Winton: What does that mean? Ms. Dougherty: Well, if you don't feel comfortable because there's such broad opposition to it, I would suggest that you at least continue the case and tell us to meet with those folks. Chairman Winton: I would consider an additional 60 day continuance because I don't want it back her on the March 27th agenda because it's too big, so I would consider that, but I'm going to make two statements. I'm going to make one to the developer and I'm going to make one to the community that I forgot to mention in my opening remarks. You all -- community first. I know that many people here are convinced that there's a zoning issue tied to all of this that is illegal and you all will deal with that in an appropriate setting which is the courts, but if you lose that issue in the courts, I think that you should not lose sight of the fact that if you lose what could in fact end up here by right which is a hundred times worse than what you're looking at today, so don't come yell at me later, if that's where we end up. If you all can't figure out how to work something out. To the developer; you've heard my motion which we've taken off the table, which is a move to deny and I don't know if I have the votes or not have the votes, but I certainly got a quick second, so maybe I do have the votes. I would suggest that you all get very serious about working out an appropriate compromise with the neighborhood and it isn't about two high- rises next door. It's about an entire community, so I've made a comment to the developer. I've made a comment to the community. I'm no magician. I can't make just anything happen. I'm just one guy, City Commissioner here that counts on two other votes to make anything happen. I don't know where those votes are either by the way, nor do you, because none of us voted, so I hope everybody gets very serious and very rational about coming together and getting a compromise that really works because you might end up with something that nobody is going to like. With that said, I will move to continue this item for 60 days which will be the April. Mr. Maxwell: P&Z Agenda. Chairman Winton: P&Z Agenda. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. I can't do that as a -- Commissioner, would you chair, Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Sure. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there a motion? Chairman Winton: We've got a motion. Commissioner Regalado: OK, there is a motion and a second. All in favor to defer for 60 days, SUB1ITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEkin) 01‘13-.ei-07 191 February 27, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: Hasn't this item been deferred once? Chairman Winton: Continued. Vice Chairman Teele: Hadn't it been continued once? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Chairman Winton: Yes, it was continued once for 30 days, this is for 60. Vice Chairman Teele: I think -- Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: I think we need to be very careful that it doesn't look like (a) we trying to tire out the public and/or, (b) that we we're avoiding a tough issue. I support the Commissioner from the district. This is a very tough issue. I'm very much impressed with the discussion. We didn't buy the land. If you're going to defer it, I would like for you to ask the City staff to determine whether or not the land is available during that 60 days. Chairman Winton: I'll be glad to ask, but you and I both know where the money is and where the money isn't. I have a sense of what the land value is here --so, I'm not -- I'm not -- while that's a nice idea, you know if somebody writes us a check we might consider. But, OK I will include that in my request. Mr. Maxwell: Can I ask that, that not be part of this motion if you want to address that issue, it be a separate matter? Chairman Winton: That's fine. Mr. Maxwell: After you address the item on the floor? Chairman Winton: Fine. Vice Chairman Teele: Is it your intent -- what is going to happen during the 60 days? Chairman Winton: That the hope here is, as I said to both parties, that they come back here in 60 days with an agreement between the two parties that we can vote on. Mr. Maxwell: OK, Commissioner -- oh so, I'm going to -- let's finish that motion and then I'll address Commissioner's statement. Chairman Winton: Ca11 the question? Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman? Can we have a time certain? SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM)t3. ON 192 February 27, 2003 Chairman Winton: Sure. We'll try 5:30 again? Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Chairman Winton: OK, call the question. Commissioner Regalado: All in favor on continuing this item for 60 days, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Regalado: No nays. The following motion was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-234 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 24, 2003, WITH A TIME CERTAIN OF 5:30 P.M. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following votes: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Maxwell: On the issue of Commissioner Teele's motion, I would suggest, Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Teele: I didn't make a motion. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: I asked Chairman Winton as the district representative, if there's any -- We've heard from the public, Dr. Jude made a very eloquent plea and I don't know if the land's available or not. I mean, but somebody ought to talk to somebody and see if that's something we can pursue or something that just doesn't make sense, I don' know. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMZ)';ON 3 ari-0-7. 193 February 27, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: OK, but I would suggest that -- that there be no discussion of that while this item is pending. 40. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" AT 2407 SW 6TH STREET Applicant(s): Mesi, Inc) Chairman Winton: There's a request from a gentleman in the audience to pick up his item before we got to all the big ones. It seems to be potentially non -controversial. Every time I get into one of those non -controversial items, they take two hours, so I'm going to hope that it is, so we will go to PZ-17. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ-17 and 18, actually are companion items. PZ-17 is First Reading. It is an amendment to the comprehensive plan, 2407 Southwest 6th Street, from single family residential to duplex residential. Recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board. Vice Chairman Teele: Your name, sir, for the record. Eduardo De La Fuente: My name is Eduardo De La Fuente, on behalf of my daughter, Ana Maria Garcia. Vice Chairman Teele: Are you supporting the change or are you opposed to it? Mr. De La Fuente: Who me? Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. De La Fuente: I'm supporting the change. Vice Chairman Teele: Alright. Just -- if you would step to the side one minute. Are there any persons here in opposition to this item PZ-17 the recommended change by the staff. There being no persons coming forward, the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chairman Teele: Moved and seconded. Is there objection? All those in favor, say "aye." SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMi3 aN 3 -�7-o7 194 February 27, 2003 GROVENOR CITY COMMISSION HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 1, 2003 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM72,A1- ON s a o�. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Well, it seems there's a lot of people in the audience I think, here also for this Item so, I'm not sure how we ought to go about this. Yes, sir. Ringo Cayard: My name is Ringo Cayard, Haitian American Foundation. We are here with the members of the church. We would definitely not like to defer since this had been going on for many, many months and the church people are there. Every single one of us left our jobs to make sure we came at the right time to hear this. Chairman Winton: OK, it seems to me then that if the people who want to speak -- are the people here -- in principally -- can I ask this question in favor of -- can I ask that question? Mr. Cayard: The people in favor would you rise up please. Chairman Winton: They don't need to rise, I'm just asking a general question, so, but, the people who are in opposition who you represent can't get here until after five, so I think what we ought to do is try to move this item to the back of the agenda so that we give the other folks an opportunity to speak. If we end before five, we're just going to I guess, go forward. So, I think we will not postpone this to another date since the room is full, but we will try to give the other folks an opportunity to get here and move it to the end of our agenda. Mr. Cayard: OK, that's fair, if it's OK with the church members. Is it OK to do it after 5 o'clock? Chairman Winton: I think, they don't get to vote. Mr. Cayard: After 5 o'clock the Commission and the Chair will hear. 3. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GROVENOR PROJECT, TO BE COMPRISED OF RESIDENTIAL TOWER AT 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 22, 2003. Chairman Winton: Tucker, you have something that you wanted to -- Tucker Gibbs: Yeah, my name is Tucker Gibbs, offices at 215 Grand Avenue. I represent the Coconut Grove Civic Club in the Grovenor matter. We are the opponents. It's my understanding that Lucia Dougherty, who represents the Grovenor is going to be asking for a deferral. I just wanted to say that we did not object to that deferral but she's not here to ask for it formally, so I just wanted to let you know. Chairman Winton: Did we get a letter? Can we acknowledge the letter? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Is there a letter from Ms. Dougherty? If there's a letter, it should be submitted into the record. Could we read that letter into the record, please? Mr. Gibbs: I don't have it with me. SUBMITTED INTO THE 7 PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMj-oN May 1, 2003 Chairman Winton: Do you have it? Hand it to the Clerk, please. Anybody got it? Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm going to get it. Chairman Winton: OK, so, we'll go get it and bring that up. Mr. Gibbs: Do you want me to read it into the record because I have it here? Chairman Winton: Do you have it? Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. Chairman Winton: Sure. Mr. Gibbs: It's dated April 29th to "The Honorable Johnny L. Winton. Re: PZ Item 15, the Grovenor House, MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) approval. Dear Commissioner Winton, as the Attorney for the above referenced project, I write this letter to advise you that I will be requesting a continuance of the above referenced matter on to the May 22, 2003 City Commission meeting. The reason for this request is that several of our neighbors including the president of the Grovenor condominium association are not able to attend this meeting. I spoke with Mr. Tucker Gibbs about this matter and he has no objection to it. Sincerely, Lucia A. Dougherty." Chairman Winton: And we have a copy that we just gave to the Clerk. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Chairman Winton: So, do we need a motion? Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, and we need it -- is that for a time certain? Mr. Gibbs: Yes, thank you very much. Could we have it a time certain at 5:30 as this one was. Chairman Winton: Sure. Commissioner Sanchez: So move with the time certain. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FORITEM12.41',g" ON 3-a-17—o-7. a May 1, 2003 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-403 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 9, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT, TO BE COMPRISED OF A RESIDENTIAL TOWER, WITH NOT MORE THAN 151 UNITS WITH ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE AND APPROXIMATELY 409 PARKING SPACES AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 22, 2003, WITH A TIME CERTAIN OF 5:30 P.M Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Mr. Maxwell: On the 22nd Mr. Gibbs? Chairman Winton: What date, Mr. Gibbs? Mr. Gibbs: May 22nd Chairman Winton: Is that a P and Z Item? Mr. Maxwell: It's a P and Z agenda. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: We just did a motion. Chairman Winton: We just did a motion. Mr. Maxwell: It didn't include the date. Chairman Winton: Yes, it did. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM2Z-4 ON 9 May 1, 2003 Chairman Winton: He said the date, I heard him say it I just didn't remember, so the fact that you didn't hear it, is irrelevant. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Chairman Winton: Thank you very much. This is a public hearing do you want to swear in all of the witnesses, Madam Clerk? AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Chairman Winton: Now, can I get clear again, I know I was sitting up here listing to all of this, which items now are off this agenda? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): 14, 15, 16, and 17. Chairman Winton: Got it. Ms. Slazyk: And we're moving 3 and 4 to later in the evening. Chairman Winton: Got it, OK. 4. APPROVE, WITH CONDITIONS, MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT (MUSP) FOR UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CLINICAL RESEARCH BUILDING AND PARKING GARAGE PROJECT, TO BE COMPRISED OF 15-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ADJACENT TO TWO- STORY WELLNESS CENTER ON TOP OF 11-STORY PARKING GARAGE WITH 1,410 PARKING SPACES AT 1150 NW 14TH STREET (Applicant(s): University of Miami). Chairman Winton: So, we can start with one. PZ Item 1. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): Thank you, for the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ-1 is a major -use special permit for the University of Miami Clinical Research Building and parking garage at 1150 Northwest 14th Street. This is going to be comprised of a 15 story office building with a two story wellness center and an 11 story parking structure with about 1,410 parking spaces. The office building will have approximately 396,000 square feet. The project was recommended for unanimous approval by both the Zoning Board and the Planning Advisory Board. It is a very well designed structure. It is within the Civic Center complex of medical uses. It's been reviewed by the Large Scale Development Committee and the Design Review Committee and recommended for approval. The Planning Department recommends approval with the conditions in your package. Chairman Winton: Is there opposition to this project in the audience by the way? Anyone in opposition to PZ-1? OK, thank you. I have a couple of questions if I may? Were you saying something? OK, there are conditions in here. Conditions three, four, and five. Condition three SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM?z-a}e ; ON 0->9-0-7. 10 May 1, 2003