Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2008-05-22 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:00 AM PLANNING & ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Joe Sanchez, Chair Michelle Spence -Jones, Vice -Chair Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner District One Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Julie 0 Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS MV - MAYORAL VETOES AM - APPROVING MINUTES CA - CONSENT AGENDA SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES RE - RESOLUTIONS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS Minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. "[Later...]" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Sarnoff, Chair Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Vice Chair Spence -Jones On the 22nd day ofMay 2008, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Joe Sanchez at 9:16 a.m., recessed at 10: 34 a.m., reconvened at 10:54 a.m., recessed at 2: 32 p.m., reconvened at 3: 38 p.m., and adjourned at 7: 25 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioners Gonzalez and Sarnoff entered the Commission chambers at 9:17 a.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Pamela E. Burns, Assistant City Clerk Chair Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE), ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to all. Welcome to the City ofMiami Commission meeting. This meeting was properly advertised. Want to take the opportunity to welcome you to our historic City Hall. The order of the day is the agenda that's in front of us today. We'll go ahead and start with the invocation, followed by the pledge of allegiance. I'll go ahead and do the invocation, and hopefully, we have one more Commissioner coming in. Usually, I start and they're watching it on TV (Television) and they come in. So if we could just get one more Commissioner, we could call the -- we could proceed with the meeting. I was advised that Commissioner Gonzalez was on his way. Commissioner Spence -Jones has arrived. All right, we do have three Commissioners; we'll go ahead and do the invocation, followed by the pledge of allegiance. I'll do the invocation and we'll have the pledge of allegiance by Vice Chair Spence -Jones. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 08-00570 CEREMONIAL ITEM Honoree The Honorable Bennett Brummer George F. Knox Jr., Esq. Presenter Protocol Item Mayor Diaz Salute Vice -Chair Spence -Jones Commendation Special Presentation City of Miami Fire Departments Annual ALS Performance Peer Recognition Award 08-00570 Cover Page.pdf PRESENTED 1. Mayor Diaz presented a Salute to the Honorable Bennett H. Brummer for his outstanding professionalism and distinguished service as Public Defender, elected eight consecutive terms by the people of South Florida. City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 MAYORAL VETOES 2. Mayor Diaz presented a Salute to artists Christo and Jeanne -Claude in recognition of the 25th anniversary of the installation of Surrounded Islands, an environmental work of art that encircled each of the eleven man-made islands of Biscayne Bay for two weeks in May 1983. 3. Commissioner Spence -Jones presented a Commendation to George F. Knox, Jr., Esquire to pay special tribute to his outstanding service and distinguished legal career, a tenure which has greatly enriched the South Florida community. 4. Commissioner Spence -Jones presented Certificates of Appreciation to City staff members for their critical assistance with the Little Haiti Park Grand Opening festivities. 5. Chief William "Shorty" Bryson presented the City ofMiami Fire Department's AnnualALS Performance Peer Recognition Awards. Chair Sanchez: But we'll go ahead now to the presentation and proclamations, the protocol list. Presentations made. NO MAYORAL VETOES Chair Sanchez: All right. We'll continue with the agenda. There are no mayoral vetoes for the record, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): That is correct. Chair Sanchez: All right. APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETING: Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, to APPROVED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones ORDER OF THE DAY Chair Sanchez: We need to approve the minutes of the following meeting, which was Planning & Zoning meeting ofApril 24, 208 [sic]. Need a motion to approve. Commissioner Gonzalez: Motion. Chair Sanchez: Motion is made by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Sarnoff. Discussion on the minutes. No discussion on the Planning & Zoning meeting ofApril 24, 208 [sic]. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Chair Sanchez: We do have one special CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting that was properly advertised after 10 o'clock. We'll take that up. It shouldn't be long. [Later...] Chair Sanchez: All right. Before we move on from the consent agenda, we're going to take some City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 CA.1 08-00496 Office of the City Attorney CA.2 08-00513 Department of Police items out of order so we could address them. First item we're going to be taking up is going to be the PZ.16, which is the Camillus House vote. We'll probably get to RE.3, which is the museums, and then we're going to possibly go into the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) or possibly go into the CRA before the museums, that way we could get those items out of the way. CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY RICHARD HICKOX, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CHAPTER 440, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE TOTAL SUM OF $40,000 IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DATES OF ACCIDENT ALLEGED AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, UPON EXECUTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, RESIGNATION AND GENERAL RELEASE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND ITS PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES, FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 05002.301001.524000.0000.00000. 08-00496 Legislation.pdf 08-00496 Cover Memo.pdf 08-00496 Memo.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0278 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT ENTITLED: "MIAMI AGGRESSIVE DRIVING ENFORCEMENT PROJECT," AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE SAME, CONSISTING OF A SUB -GRANT AWARDED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $127,334, TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR TWO (2) FULLY EQUIPPED UNMARKED POLICE VEHICLES ALONG WITH VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS WITH TRAILERS TO ENHANCE THE ENFORCEMENT OF AGGRESSIVE DRIVING, REDUCE TRAFFIC CRASHES AND TO INCREASE HIGHWAY SAFETY THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MIAMI; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID SUB -GRANT AND TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ACCEPTANCE AND COMPLIANCE OF SAID SUB -GRANT AWARD. City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 08-00513 Legislation.pdf 08-00513 Summary Form.pdf 08-00513 Routing Form.pdf 08-00513 Memo.pdf 08-00513 Memo 2.pdf 08-00513 Letter.pdf 08-00513 Letter 2.pdf 08-00513 Sub Grant.pdf 08-00513-Summary Fact Sheet.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0279 CA.3 08-00514 RESOLUTION Office of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Transportation ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND THE MIAMI-DADE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000, FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE HEALTH DISTRICT/CIVIC CENTER COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. B-30093. 08-00514 Legislation.pdf 08-00514 Exhibit 1.pdf 08-00514 Exhibit 2.pdf 08-00514 Exhibit 3.pdf 08-00514 Exhibit 4.pdf 08-00514 Exhibit 5.pdf 08-00514 Exhibit 6.pdf 08-00514 Summary Form.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0280 CA.4 08-00515 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE Parks and TOTAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED Recreation $75,000, FROM THE COMMISSION DISTRICT TWO QUALITY OF LIFE CATEGORY, OF THE HOMELAND DEFENSE/ NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS, FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF RESURFACING THE PLAYGROUND AREA ADJACENT TO THE BARNYARD BUILDING LOCATED AT 3870 WASHINGTON AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ON THE CITY OF MIAMI PROPERTY AND FACILITY LEASED AND MAINTAINED BY COCONUT GROVE CARES, INC., (" CGC"),WHICH City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 CA.5 08-00516 Department of Purchasing OPERATES A CHILDREN'S AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM FOR THE COMMUNITY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000, PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW PLAYGROUND TO BE ACQUIRED THROUGH MATCHING GRANTS BY CGC, AND IN AN AMOUNT OF $15,000, FOR THE RECONVERSION OF THE EXISTING HOCKEY COURTS AT THE WASHINGTON AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LOCATION OF ARMBRISTER PARK, INTO TWO NEW TENNIS COURTS. 08-00515 Legislation.pdf 08-00515 Summary Form.pdf 08-00515 OverView Form.pdf 08-00515 Budget.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0287 Chair Sanchez: All right. CA.3 [sic]. CA.3 [sic], Commissioner Sarnoff, you're recognized. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): CA.4. Commissioner Sarnoff. CA. 4. CA.4 is an allocation of $75, 000 from the District 2 quality of life category from the Homeland Defense/Neighborhood Improvement Bond funds, and I just wanted to let everyone know that it's going to be resurfacing playground equipment and installation of playground equipment which will include two hockey fields, which will now be converted to tennis courts, and this goes to Coconut Grove Cares; and it's a extremely important program for the Village West, and l just wanted to have the opportunity to discuss it and bring it to the citizens' attention and I'll move it. Chair Sanchez: All right. There's a motion on -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- CA.4, I apologize. There's a second on CA.4. Any discussion on CA.4? Hearing no discussion on the consent agenda, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Madam Clerk, CA.4 was approved 5/0. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED FEBRUARY 4, 2008, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 68096, FROM COMMERCIAL LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT CO., INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FOR THE PURCHASE OF INDUSTRIAL WASHERS, AND RAM'D AIR GEAR DRYER, LTD., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FOR THE PURCHASE OF INDUSTRIAL DRYERS, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE RESCUE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $186,380; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. P-18-180007, T-03, A-1355, E-EQUIPMENT, 0-181000, AND AWARD 1356. City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 08-00516 Legislation.pdf 08-00516 Summary Form.pdf 08-00516 Tabulation of Bids.pdf 08-00516 Amendment Package.pdf 08-00516 Invitation to Bid.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0281 CA.6 08-00517 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Information ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE PROVISION OF WIDE AREA Technology NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, FROM AT&T, UNDER EXISTING CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. 05-06/07; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT(S), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM(S), WITH THE TERMS AS LISTED UNDER EACH RESPECTIVE AGREEMENT; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. 08-00517 Legislation.pdf 08-00517 Exhibit 1.pdf 08-00517 Exhibit 2.pdf 08-00517 Summary Form.pdf 08-00517 Agreement.pdf 08-00517 Agreement 2.pdf 08-00517 Agreement 3.pdf 08-00517 Agreement 4.pdf 08-00517 Appendix.pdf 08-00517 Appendix 2.pdf 08-00517 Commission Item Summary.pdf 08-00517 Commission Memo.pdf 08-00517 Diagram.pdf 08-00517 Executive Summary.pdf 08-00517 Frame Relay.pdf 08-00517 I nformation. pdf 08-00517 Master Agreement.pdf 08-00517 Network Costs.pdf 08-00517 Pre-Legislation.pdf 08-00517 Reduced Pricing Sheet.pdf 08-00517 Regulations.pdf 08-00517 Request For Proposals.pdf 08-00517 Services Pricing Sheet. pdf 08-00517 Signature Page.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0282 City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 CA.7 08-00506 District 2- Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff CA.8 08-00535 District 2- Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff CA.9 08-00563 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF FACILITY RENTAL FEES, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500), FOR THE USE OF THE MIAMI ROWING CLUB, ON MAY 23, 2008, FOR THE PRE -DRAGON BOAT PARTY AND ON MAY 30, 2008, FOR THE DRAGON BOAT RACES SPONSORED BY THE MIAMI OVERSEAS CHINESE ASSOCIATION. 08-00506 Legislation.pdf WITHDRAWN RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF FACILITY RENTAL FEES, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TWO HUNDRED NINETY FOUR DOLLARS AND TWO CENTS ($294.02), FOR THE USE OF THE ELIZABETH VIRRICK GYM ON MAY 31, 2008, FOR THE SECOND ANNUAL WALL AND WALK OF FAME BREAKFAST 2008, SPONSORED BY THE COCONUT GROVE HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS ASSOCIATION. 08-00535 Legislation.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Honorable Mayor Manny Diaz R-08-0283 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-0345, ADOPTED JUNE 14, 2007, IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "THE CHILDREN'S TRUST UNITING FOR PEACE GRANT," AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $331,922.61, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION'S UNITING FOR PEACE SCHOOL YEAR RECREATION, CHILD MURDER AND YOUTH VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM AT VIRRICK PARK, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM THE CHILDREN'S TRUST; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF CITY OF MIAMI IN -KIND SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,721.89; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ACCEPTANCE OF AND TO COMPLY WITH SAID GRANT. 08-00563 Legislation.pdf 08-00563 Exhibit 1.pdf 08-00563 Exhibit 2.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0284 City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 CA.10 08-00573 RESOLUTION City Manager's A RESOLUTION OF MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Office ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000, FROM THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FOR A POLICE CAMERA PILOT PROGRAM, FOR THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/ PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT AREA; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. 08-00573 Legislation.pdf 08-00573 Summary Form.pdf 08-00573 Letter.pdf 08-00573 System Quotation.pdf 08-00573 Memo.pdf 08-00573 Pre-Legislation.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0285 CA.11 08-00574 RESOLUTION City Manager's A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Office ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT FROM THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $343,392, FOR A POLICE VISIBILITY PILOT PROGRAM, FOR THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI REDEVELOPMENT AREAS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. 08-00574 Legislation.pdf 08-00574 Summary Form.pdf 08-00574 Letter.pdf 08-00574 Budget.pdf 08-00574 Memo.pdf 08-00574 Pre-Legislation.pdf This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0286 Direction by Commissioner Sarnoff to the City Manager to provide a report to the Commission detailing the amount offunds contributed by the club district versus the cost to the City in overtime for police officers and other issues related to the 24-hour operation of clubs in the club district. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir, you're recognized. City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 CA.12 08-00575 City Manager's Office Commissioner Sarnoff. Not to revisit it, but do want to make a comment and I'd like to make a directive on CA.11 to the City Manager. If you look at the City ofMiami Police budget, the one-year operations -- for club operations, which is really in the club district, it indicates $244, 000 in overtime just to support the clubs. What I'd like to learn from your office is how much do the clubs contribute versus what it cost us in terms of police overtime to just man the streets and the traffic flow and the other issues attendant to 24-hour operation of clubs. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Commissioner, I've already requested that information to be provided to me, and I'll provide to you as soon as I receive it. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND DAUB FIRMIN HENDRICKSON SCULPTURE GROUP, LLC, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000, FOR THE CREATION OF A STATUE HONORING JULIA TUTTLE, TO BE PLACED ON THE MIAMI RIVER WALK; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM AN ACCOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR SAID PURPOSE. 08-00575-Legislation-SUB. pdf 08-00575 Summary Form.pdf 08-00575-Agreement-SUB. pdf Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0297 Chair Sanchez: Next -- for the record, CA.7 was withdrawn. We don't need no action taken. The item has been withdrawn. And we go to the last item on the agenda [sic], which is CA.12, with a substitution; and therefore, it was pulled for discussion. Does anybody want to put the substitution language on the record? Sir, you're recognized for the record. Larry Spring: Larry Spring, chief financial officer. There was a name change with the firm -- a slight name change with a firm that we had been negotiating with, so I'll just quickly read the headline of the resolution. "A resolution of the Miami City Commission, with attachment(s), authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement, in substantially the attached form, between the City ofMiami and Daub Firmin Hendrickson Sculpture Group, LLC (Limited Liability Company), in an amount not to exceed 200, 000, for the creation of a statue honoring Julia Tuttle, to be placed at the Miami River Walk." Chair Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion, as amended? Commissioner Gonzalez: So move. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez. Is there a second? Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Second. City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Second by Vice Chair Spence -Jones. Discussion on the item. No discussion on the item. Madam Clerk, we're taking a vote on the item as sub -- with a substitution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Adopted the Consent Agenda Motion by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones END OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Sanchez: Consent agenda. Let's go to the consent agenda. Any Commissioners willing to push -- pull any of the consent agenda for discussion? Commissioner Sarnoff. CA. 4. Chair Sanchez: CA. 4. Any other items to be pulled for discussion? The Administration, do you have any item you want to pull for discussion on consent agenda? Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, it's just to put on the record that CA.7 has -- or it needs to be withdrawn. Chair Sanchez: Okay. For the record, CA.7 is being withdrawn. Okay. Mr. Hernandez: And also, Mr. Chairman, CA.12 has a substitute so it should be pulled and discussed separately. Chair Sanchez: All right. We'll pull -- CA.12 is being pulled for discussion, just basically a substitution. All right. Are there any other items on the consent agenda wishing to be pulled for discussion? If not, I need a motion to approve the remaining consent agenda. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: So move. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Vice Chair Spence -Jones. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: Is there a second? Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: Second has been made by Commissioner Gonzalez. Discussion on the items? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. We have two items that have been pulled for discussion, and we'll go to CA.3 [sic]. I would -- I -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): 4. City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: -- apologize. I had one that was going to pull for discussion. I'm pulling CA.8 for discussion. I do apologize. Mr. Hernandez: CA.8? Chair Sanchez: Yes. So what do we need to do there, Madam Clerk? Just -- we approved it. I'm okay with it. I just want to state something on the record, so I'm not going to pull it. I'm just going to state something on the record on CA.8. Ms. Thompson: Then what -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: -- you may want to do is state it on the record now that you're still in the CA (Consent Agenda) section before you move on to any other. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Just on CA.8, Mr. City Attorney, I had -- I'm sorry -- Mr. City Manager, I had requested from you a directive to provide us, going back, I think it was, two or three years, as to all the waivers that had been proffered by the Commissioners. Mr. Hernandez: Yes, Mr. Chair, and -- Chair Sanchez: I have yet to receive that report from you, sir. Mr. Hernandez: I checked on it last night, and staff is still working on it. We'll get it to you within the next week. Chair Sanchez: So you needed some additional time to do some research? Mr. Hernandez: We do need it, sir. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Okay. City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 ORDINANCE - SECOND READING SR.1 07-01555 ORDINANCE Second Reading Downtown AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Development 37, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, Authority ENTITLED "OFFENSES -MISCELLANEOUS," BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 37-8, ENTITLED "PANHANDLING PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN AREAS;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 07-01555 Legislation FR.pdf 07-01555 Cover Memo FR.pdf 07-01555 Boundary Description FR.pdf 07-01555 Map FR.pdf 07-01555 E-mail FR.pdf 07-01555-Submittal-Downtown Development Authority Reso. No. 06-2008 FR.pdf 07-01555-Submittal-Map FR.pdf 07-01555 Legislation SR.pdf 07-01555 Cover Memo SR.pdf 07-01555 Pre -Legislation SR.pdf 07-01555 Email SR.pdf 07-01555 Map SR.pdf 07-01555-Submittal-Vicky Garcia-Toledo.pdf 07-01555-Submittal-Maps. pdf Motion by Chair Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12997 Chair Sanchez: Call the meeting to order. All right. Is there anyone here who's going to need an interpreter, Spanish, English, Creole? All right. If not, what I'll ask is that if you're going to testin, in front of the Commission, please see the City Clerk. You need to fill out a form on any item, and the only thing that we ask is when you come up here, you state your name and address for the record. The first item -- well, the meeting is back in order. I hope you enjoyed your lunch. The first item that we'll hear in the afternoon is going to be SR.1, which is an ordinance on second reading, and that is pertaining to the panhandling ordinance that's being presented It is in front of us on second reading. So what we'll do at this time is we'll have the Administration come up, have their input, and then we'll have -- all right. Jay, state your name for the record, and then -- Jay Solowsky: Good afternoon. My name is Jay Solowsky. I reside at 2127 Brickell Avenue, andl am here as the presenter of the second reading of the panhandling ordinance on behalf of the -- Chair Sanchez: Jay, could you state your name for the address [sic]? I'm sorry. I had the microphone off and -- Mr. Solowsky: Of course. Chair Sanchez: -- the court reporter needs it. City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Solowsky: Sure. Good afternoon. My name is Jay Solowsky. I live at 2127 Brickell Avenue. I am here on behalf of the Downtown Development Authority to present the panhandling ordinance for its second reading. With leave of the Commission, I would like to read the title, then explain some of the changes that have taken place between the first reading and today, and then after the speakers present their issues, I would like to come up and, in closing, present the DDA's (Downtown Development Authority's) recommendations. This is an ordinance of the Miami City Commission amending Chapter 37, of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, entitled "Offensive [sic] -Miscellaneous, " by adding a new Section 37-8, entitled "Panhandling Prohibited in Certain Areas; " containing a repealer provision, a severability clause, and providing for an effective date. Between the hearing for first reading and today, several changes have been made. We have met with the Miami -Dade County Homeless Trust, with the Miami Coalition, with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), the Miami Chamber of Commerce, and we have met and/or spoken with numerous stakeholders, and based upon conversations, there have been several changes. IfI may, with regard to the ordinance, there is now -- if you turn to the second page of the ordinance -- in Section 2, it is B-2, there is now a definition of panhandling that is contained in the ordinance. Now there's some issues regarding that that I'd like to address later, but after meeting with the Homeless Trust and whatever, that is included. I would like to address that a little later. Further, with respect to Item D under Penalties, now the first violation will result in the issuance of a warning. There will not be an immediate process or penalty for a fine or jail for the first offense. There will only be for the second or third or beyond. I am going, when I come back in closing to give you DDA recommendations, request that perhaps you consider an amendment so that there be a fine or jail term for each offense, but not a fine and jail term. Now I have prepared a map, after having met with most of the speakers, that I would like to pass around and show you so that as speakers come up and present their positions, you will be able to see on a map what it is they're asking for in terms of inclusion into the area. Okay. The first page shows what was approved at the April 10 first reading. The second page, if you'll look at it, highlighted in blue or purple, are proposed additional areas that have included just for discussion purposes so that as speakers come up and present their cases to you, you will see what they are asking be included. The third page will represent what the DDA would recommend for additional inclusion, obviously, subject to the approval of the Commission, which is less than what the speakers are asking for, but more than what was initially included, andl would like to address that after the speakers have spoken to discuss why our position is what it is. Now this ordinance would prohibit all panhandling in the specified areas that ultimately would be approved. You would hear from the ACLU that since there is already an aggressive panhandling ordinance, that the ordinance being presented today is unnecessary. The DDA disagrees in that this ordinance will prohibit not only aggressive panhandling, but passive panhandling as well. Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or menace, but the cumulative effect of that panhandling, given the volume of panhandlers, is pervasive and adversely affects the economic vitality of the City. The response to the problem that the DDA is asking for is extremely limited and narrowly drawn, as I will explain later in closing. I also want to point out that the DDA has agreed to provide and pay for signage in order to provide fair notice and warning so that a person can gear his or her behavior accordingly to know what is or is not permitted The DDA has also pledged to continue to work with the Miami -Dade County Homeless Trust, with David Rosemond, with the City homeless program and other organizations to assist in the process of public education because the public needs to be educated to discourage them from giving money to panhandlers and encouraging them to give to charities that serve the needy. Ron Book, David Raymond, and the Miami -Dade County Homeless Trust are already working on a project in the future where they may potentially place special type parking -type meters where people could donate to assist the homeless. The DDA will also work to educate the judiciary and law enforcement regarding the need to enforce this ordinance. The DDA will also ask its ambassadors to monitor and discourage panhandling. Now I want to point out that there is a City ofMiami Beach ordinance that is currently being challenged by the ACLU. The City Attorney will comment on that, but point it out because we must assume that there will be a challenge to this ordinance. After everyone speaks, I would like to then give the DDA recommendations and explain to you City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 procedurally what I believe would be necessary. I would also ask at that time for your consideration of certain amendments, a, to ease the penalty or fine, but not both, and second, to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of a definition. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. Is there --? You want to be heard, Mr. Book? Ron Book: IfI could, please. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yes, sir. Mr. Book: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you very much. For the record, my name is Ron Book, 2999 Northeast 191 Street, Penthouse 6, Aventura, Florida. I'm here in my capacity as chairman of the Miami -Dade County Homeless Trust, and I'm joined today by David Raymond our executive director, Ben Burton, who is a designated member sitting on the Trust. I don't know if there are any other members of the Trust here at this time. Let me just begin by thanking the Commission and the Manager for the extra time that you gave to me to allow some involvement on the Trust since I was away during the legislative session. I want to begin by making one point very clear to the Chair, to this Commission, and to the City -- and Commissioner Regalado knows this very well as a member of the Homeless Trust. I don't support panhandling. I don't like panhandling. I don't find any part of panhandling acceptable. I don't like it, period. Paragraph. I don't like it. One of the few places that I part from Ben Burton in his role and capacity as running the Miami Coalition of [sic] the Homeless is the issue of panhandling. I just don't find it acceptable, and the reason I don't find it acceptable is I think it provides the wrong message. I have been involved in the homeless movement in this community for the past 15 years. I have chaired the finance committee or the full Trust for the entire 15 years that it has been in existence. We are a very fortunate community. We are a fortunate community to have a city government and a county government that partners up, collaborates together, and has worked together for 15 years to end homelessness in our community, but panhandling sanctions homelessness, so I begin from that perspective. On the other hand, I also don't like criminalizing homelessness, and my concern and the concern that members of our Trust have had is that this was an effort to potentially criminalize the issue of homelessness. Spending the time, having had our staff have the opportunity to spend time with the DDA, we have a very different perspective on the issue today than what we had, andl want to publicly thank Alice Robertson and Jay for giving us the opportunity to meet with them and to having an open mind to changes to the proposed ordinance that we think mitigate many of the concerns that advocates in the homeless area have had as it relates to the proposed ordinance. And so -- first of all, let's talk about some of the changes that we think that the DDA is prepared to embrace. First of all, a warning for the first offense as opposed to simply an arrest or a fine or a ticket, we think is a major step in the right direction. Alternative Programs has asked us, through the City homeless outreach team, the definition of panhandling, which I understand has some people concerned today, but we think defining panhandling is significant, and if there are some unintended consequences that people are concerned with, then I think you work with that definition of panhandling to exclude something that you think may be a problem, but not defining panhandling, in our opinion, would be a mistake, and we think that is a step in the right direction. We also think the effort and the commitment to post the areas is a big deal, and the commitment to pay for the posting of the signs as to where panhandling isn't permitted so that the world is on notice, so that we don't subject the City and those involved in the homeless effort with needless litigation because people aren't informed as to what and where panhandling is allowed and where it isn't allowed. On the penalty section, we also believe there is still some room for discussion. We do not believe -- and we've had this discussion with the DDA as recently as a week ago at the Homeless Trust executive committee meeting, where we expressed some concern about a fine and jail being coupled together. We don't necessarily believe that is a productive way to get there. We think that it should be one or the other, but not both. We think that someone should have the opportunity, if you will, to either pay a fine or to get some credit based on service in the community, but not jail time and a fine. That is, in effect, double City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 penalizing someone for panhandling that very possibly is not in a position to pay a fine and will only spend more time in our jail at a significant cost to the system, which we also do not think is productive. I do believe you have to have some deterrent, or there's no value to passing an ordinance, so please do not think we're suggesting to you that you eliminate the penalties. We just think there needs to be a better balance, andl'm hopeful that Jay and Alice are going to come forward before the end of the discussion today with some type of additional compromise based on the discussions we had with them last week. And then finally, I want to make one more point clear to you. We have not been sitting idly by without believing that there is a better way to deal with the panhandling issue. Again, not in lieu of your ordinance, but we are very familiar with what Denver has done to reduce panhandling by 92 percent on their streets. We think it's productive. We think it's been effective. There are other communities, like San Francisco, moving to a similar plan, and you will see us, before the end of 2008, bringing back not just a plan, but the implementation of a program. We back it up with dollars. We have dollars allocated in our budget to implement a parking meter -type program that puts the meters in very visible locations where panhandling occurs and gives the public an opportunity to put money in a meter that otherwise gets collected by parking meter attendants and gets allocated to homeless programs. In Denver, I believe this past year they collected approximately $150, 000 in this program. It is a -- they believe it's a recurring dollar number in that range that otherwise gets put back into the programming for the homeless programs. We do not like panhandling. We do not support panhandling, but we're not going to eliminate it completely from our society. We're not going to eliminate it completely from our community. Our goal is to continue to work with our partner, the City ofMiami, together with the Miami -Dade Homeless Trust to come up with a better way to eliminate panhandling and to reduce it in our community. We recognize the rights of the citizens of the community. It isn't simply the rights of homeless individuals. We balance the act between property owners, the citizens of our communities, and the homeless folks, and Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, again, we think by giving us this opportunity before adopting the ordinance, I think the ordinance that you're adopting is an ordinance that has additional balance and sensitivity to the concerns raised by the homeless community, the providers, the advocates, and the like, and without the time that you afforded us, I'm not sure we would have had this balance. It is our goal to avoid litigation. Our goal is to not have people provided with a forum, and believe that the proposal that you will have before you with the recommendations for changes by the DDA helps us to get there. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I'd be glad to answer any questions now and throughout the discussion on the matter. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Any Commissioners have any questions of Mr. Book? Mr. Book: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff.. Thank you, Mr. Book. Open it up to a public hearing now. Anyone from the public wishing to address this? Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Good afternoon. For the record, Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with the law firm ofBilzen Sumberg, andl'm appearing before you today, first and foremost, as a professional business owner who has had my legal practice in downtown Miami for over 20 years, and can tell you that we need this ordinance. I need to be able to use the services provided in downtown Miami, where I have my office, and feel safe. So I applaud the DDA in their efforts. But I'm really appearing before you today on behalf of two stakeholders in downtown Miami who fully support this ordinance, but would like to have the streets surrounding their properties included in that ordinance. First is the Bank of America Tower. To some of us who've been around here for a long time, we still call it CenTrust, and it's clear that this is a major site of employment in downtown Miami. The ground floor of this building is all commercial. There is solid commercial activity in this property. Not only that, but this is part of your City ofMiami James L. Knight/Hyatt, as well as the parking for those sites in downtown Miami. And so it is, we feel, imperative that you consider including the Southeast 1st Avenue, between Southeast 1st Street City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 and Southeast 3rd Street, and Southeast 2nd Street, between Southeast 1st Avenue and Southeast 2nd Avenue. We have met with Alice Robertson. We thank her for taking the time to educate us on the efforts of the DDA, and we applaud the DDA, and especially Jay, for taking the tremendous amount of time -- that's what you call an active and supportive member, and we're lucky to have him on that board in the DDA. The other item that we would like to request respectfully that you consider for inclusion is the Omni Mall, and as many of you know, the Omni is currently undergoing a recapitalization and development program of over a hundred million dollars to bring back what we hope will be an active and fun place for the residents of Miami to once again enjoy their time. Part of it is going to be office use, so there will be, you know, 365-days-a-year activity at that center, and we would ask you to consider including Biscayne Boulevard, between 17th Terrace and 15th Street, as well as Northeast 15th Street, between Biscayne Boulevard and North Bayshore Drive. I would hope that you would consider those additions. We'll be here for the duration in case you have any questions. Commissioner Sarnoff. Any questions? Thank you, Vicky. Benjamin Burton: Okay. I'm Ben Burton with the Miami Coalition for the Homeless, 3550 Biscayne Boulevard. I would like to reiterate that the Coalition believes that these types of ordinances marginalize and criminalize the poor and the homeless in our community. I think that you're going to hear speaker after speaker talking about we don't want them in our block, but no one has offered any solutions, aside from the Homeless Trust, about what to do to help these people and to deal with the poor in our community. Having said that, I wanted to publicly thank the Commission for giving us an opportunity to meet with the DDA and thank the DDA for their willingness to work with us on language and the Homeless Trust for convening these important meetings. While we were happy to see a definition of panhandling -- and as Ron said, this is significant. If people don't know why they're being arrested, I think that that's a real crime. And a warning, out of the penalty sections, we are concerned as well about the recommendation that we made; on second and third offense would result in jail time or a fine and not jail time and a fine was not included in what was in your packet. We don't really think that there's a need for an increase in the fees in this section because, quite frankly, poor people and homeless people won't be able to pay these fines. And 30 days or 60 days in jail will be a large deterrent for people not to want to engage in this behavior. We will respectfully request that the Commission consider this amendment to the ordinance. Again, we believe that these types of ordinances are unnecessary and do not deal with the underlying causes of poverty and homelessness. But we are appreciative of being made a part of the process, andl thank you on behalf of the Coalition. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Burton, is it your recommendation that instead of the fines, that we just remain or leave the prison sentence? Mr. Burton: I think that it should be either/or, at the same level. So it's either 30 days or the $100 because I think we're talking about people who don't have resources. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Burton? Yes, ma'am. Carlene Sawyer: Good afternoon. My name is Carlene Sawyer. I am the president of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU, 4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 340, in Miami. I'm here this afternoon to tell you that the ACL [sic] opposes this ordinance and we ask you to vote against adding Section 37-8 to the City Code. This proposed ordin -- panhandling ordinance criminalizes constitutionally protected speech and protected activity through the primary areas of pedestrian traffic in downtown Miami. It offends the fundamental right -- the constitutional rights of individuals to engage in protected speech and in the harmless activity -- life -sustaining activity that they are engaging. We recognize that it is difficult to balance the competing interests of the constituency and the constituents here in the City ofMiami, but you still must respect the fundamental constitutional rights of all of the residents, and that includes on people City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 who've fallen on hard times. Driving such individuals out of downtown by curtailing this constitutionally protected activities and imposing these harsh penalties cannot be the way that this City chooses to handle their issues of poverty. We feel specifically -- I'd like to thank the DDA for meeting with us and talking about the definitions of panhandling. We believe that this is constitutionally protected speech, and we are, in particular, concerned -- particularly concerned about this definition of the area in which you are prohibiting this kind of constitutionally protected speech. We understand that you may regulate this kind of speech and the time, place, and manner, but you must provide an alternative, and this kind of speech requires some kind of pedestrian activities, and you are defining these areas in the areas where there is pedestrian activity in downtown Miami. I think you will also see from the number of people that will speak on this this afternoon that they are going to request one more block, one more block. And I, again, would like to thank all of the services in town, in particular, the Homeless Trust, for taking on this issue and for suggesting more services to people who are impoverished, including those who find themselves homeless, and in particular, the Miami Coalition for the Homeless. But the ACLU's position is that this ordinance is, in its language, constitutionally insufficient. Thank you very much. Chair Sanchez: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. I was going to -- Chair Sanchez: Ma'am, do you believe that the definition is unconstitutional in the ordinance? Ms. Sawyer: We do believe that. We do believe -- Chair Sanchez: And why is that? Ms. Sawyer: -- that it is -- been constitutionally protected many times that people can ask for help. There is an ordinance in place now where, in consideration of safety of people, where aggressive panhandling is prohibited. Any kind of assault, any kind of insulting language, any kind of stalking, any kind of prohibition from any kind of activities is obstructing any kind of activities downtown, that is already prohibited in the ordinances that are on the book at this time, and we do believe that the kind of definition that is -- even with the changes, we believe that those are constitutionally insufficient -- those -- that language is constitutionally insufficient. Chair Sanchez: Is unconstitutional. Ms. Sawyer: Un -- in -- is constitutionally insufficient, meaning unconstitutional. The ACLU's position is that the language, as it is proposed, including the definition that has been proposed by the DDA today that you are reading, we believe that is unconstitutional. Chair Sanchez: Thank you so much. Ms. Sawyer: You are welcome. Commissioner Sarnoff. Wait, wait. Ms. Sawyer: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sarnoff. I have a few questions, Ms. Sawyer. Ms. Sawyer: Oh, of course. Commissioner Sarnoff. Your position is that this Commission could regulate the conduct, correct? City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Ms. Sawyer: We believe it is regulated at this time with the ordinance that you have now. Commissioner Sarnoff. Do you think that this Commission could require licenses or permits for people who want to panhandle? Ms. Sawyer: We do not take that position, no. Commissioner Sarnoff. No. I -- my question to you is, do you believe we could? Ms. Sawyer: We have challenged those kinds of licensing agreement and been successful many times in that this is a speech issue. This is a First Amendment issue and an equal protection issue. Commissioner Sarnoff. And what level of scrutiny do you think a court gives this speech? Is this business speech? Is this free -- you know, speech, political speech? What speech do you categorize this as? Ms. Sawyer: We do not categorize this as commercial or political speech. This is simple First Amendment speech to be able to ask people for assistance. Commissioner Sarnoff. But you have -- when you say it's unconstitutional, the court's going to apply a certain scrutiny test. That test is going to be based on the speech being either commercial speech; it's going to be political speech, it's going to be some form of speech that the court will determine what type of test and scrutiny to give. So my question to you is, as you sit here today and you are, obviously, trying to affect our decision -making process, I'm asking you what type of scrutiny you believe a court gives this and under what category of speech? Ms. Sawyer: I am sorry, but I'm going to have to apologize. It's not the ACLU's position to tell you what kind of constitutional speech that you come up with will pass that standard. We will look to you for the kind of speech that will come forward The ACLU is here to protect that speech and make that speech -- sure that that speech comes to a certain standard. Andl cannot tell you until the language comes down -- I cannot suggest language to you andl cannot tell you Commissioner Sarnoff. No. I'm not asking you to suggest language, but there are certainly three other people up here that are not lawyers -- Ms. Sawyer: Right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- that the ACLU stands in front of them -- I'm sure they don't want to be subject to an ACLU challenge -- Ms. Sawyer: Understandably. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- and my question to you is really pointed towards -- we all know that there's -- you can't go in a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!," correct? Ms. Sawyer: That is correct. Commissioner Sarnoff. Not protected speech. Ms. Sawyer: That is correct. Commissioner Sarnoff. We know that a person with a mural has a certain right to commercial City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 speech, but we can regulate that speech, correct? Ms. Sawyer: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. We know that this Commission can make political statements probably pretty freely because political speech is seen as probably the highest protected form of speech there is. My question to you is, where does the speech that you're concerned of a person's constitutional nature fall within? Ms. Sawyer: What I am telling you is that we do not feel that it is our role to provide for you a level -- to provide for you a specific area in which the language that is provided here that will be contested. We feel the speech is simple First Amendment speech of asking people for assistance. Does not -- we do not view that, the way this is written, as commercial speech, but again, it is not our role in being here today. We simply have reviewed this language. We have talked to the DDA. We've been very fortunate that we have been able to work with those organizations, and at this point, that is, with this definition, we do feel that this is constitutionally insufficient. Commissioner Sarnoff. So there's no way you can tell us what level you're scrutinizing this speech, correct? Ms. Sawyer: I'm sorry. I'm not prepared to tell you at what level there would be a challenge, no. Commissioner Sarnoff. And -- you know what? That's fine. Ms. Sawyer: Thank you. Thank you very much. Pamela Weller: Good afternoon. Pamela Weller, Bayside Marketplace, General Growth Properties. I spoke before you a month ago andl shared with you that Jim Rouse had a dream 21 years ago, and that dream still lives, and the condominiums and the residents and the hotels, it's fabulous, andl commend this Commission for bringing forth to the downtown area everything that you have approved so far. It's been awesome to see those cranes moving and folks moving in, and walking downtown on Saturday, just this past Saturday, and seeing people walk their dogs and seeing people go to Walgreens and go to all of the amenities we have downtown that they haven't been able to use, honestly. I have to tell you this is not a homeless issue. This was never a homeless issue. As a member of the DDA and as a board member of DMP (Downtown Miami Partnership), this was never ever our intent. This is about economic development, period. The end. This is not about taking people who can't afford -- who have no jobs, who can't afford to eat. This isn't about taking money out of their mouths. This is about us to be able to grow the money that we've already spent in this community, and we want to get bigger and we want to get better, and we want the residents to move into those residence. They're not going to do it unless we put a stop to aggressive panhandling. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Anybody else in the public wish to be heard? Mr. Book, you want to come back up? Mr. Book: I would, please, ifI could. I would just -- again, for the record, Ron Book, chairman, Miami -Dade Homeless Trust. I think laying a record here is important because if there is a challenge, I think it's important that we lay out all the facts on what is and what isn't constitutional. And the fact of the matter is the definition of panhandling is important because it lays out the parameters of what conduct is acceptable and what conduct is not acceptable, number one. Number two, I think that what a court does when they look at the constitutionality of an act, they look at the whole thing, and they look at the health and the welfare aspects under the Constitution as well, not the safety, 'cause I don't want to talk about the safety issue because I don't want to talk about the prejudice that goes along with panhandling issues, which there is City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 plenty of. The fact is that we have a responsibility to advocate for laws, and the government has a responsibility to enact laws for the whole community, and that includes laws that protect the public's health and the public's welfare, and this is what this ordinance is intended to do, balance not infringing on the speech aspects. And one of the reasons why we don't support expanding the boundaries beyond what's proposed here is because we believe this is a reasonable level of regulation and going much beyond it is likely to meet with a much tougher set of criteria by the court, which we don't think you ought to want to do. We think what you've got here is a balanced proposal, and we think it's an effort to try to bring balance into the community while protecting the rights of all citizens, and let me just end by one last comment because I'm not sure I made myself as clear as I needed to. The reason we don't like panhandling, the reason I don't support panhandling, as chairman of the Trust, is because I do believe it sanctions homelessness. It says that the conduct of living on the streets is all right. Andl remind you, Mr. Chairman, I remind this Commission, the reason together the City of Miami and the Miami -Dade Homeless Trust got people from -- to stop feeding individuals on the street was exactly the same reason, which is we did not want to sanction people living on the streets, and feeding them on the streets did that. Andl remind you that we have now served hundreds of thousands of meals together in our joint program of getting people off of the streets at eating time. That's productive, and that's what this ordinance intends to do. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Anybody else from the public? Jorge Becerra: Good afternoon. Commissioner Sarnoff. Two minutes. Mr. Becerra: My name is Jorge Becerra. My address is 234 Northeast 3rd Street, number 2107, Miami, Florida 33132. I am a resident of downtown Miami. I moved to downtown in 2005, so I've been living and breathing the panhandling situation that we've incurred. My day at the Loft, which is where I live, starts by coming downstairs and seeing the tourists coming out of the Metromover station on Northeast 3rd Street with maps heading towards Bayfront Park, Bayside, or the different venues, and a lot of times you see the aggressive panhandling. Obviously, we are a major street that goes towards these different venues, and so we see this and live it every single day. I come as a resident of downtown and -- but also, I think that we need to keep in mind that we have students at the Miami Dade College that are impacted by this, obviously, the tourists, the locals that come to the events. There's not a Heat game that I don't go to that I walk to two blocks away where I don't see people parking in the garage or going to a Pavarotti concert there at the arena and people are being accosted aggressively. I get in my car andl have the people knocking on my door -- on my window, "Open up. Let me wash your windows." And obviously, this permeates. The last point I want to make is that we, as a downtown resident, understand that we -- and I've been living this now for a couple of years -- understand that this is something that's of a sensitive nature, but we will have, as someone alluded to before, 15 -- 1,600 units coming here in the next year, year and a half. That represents about 2,000 residents, so I would -- just wanted to make it known that I am in favor of this ordinance. Thank you very much. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Next. John Peterson: Good afternoon. My name is John Peterson. I represent Perricone's Marketplace at 15 Southeast loth Street. I've been the general manager there for about six years now, and as the area has grown as well as it has, so has the panhandling problem; and certainly, you know, we devote a lot of time and energy there to provide our guests with a positive experience so they'll come back, and it's, unfortunately, not something that is going away. It's getting to be a bigger problem for us. You know, we'll go outside three, four, or five times an evening, you know, to ask someone to move along. Guests, we'll ask to move off the porch, to move inside. So I stand here just to add anything we can do to help resolve, we certainly will. And again -- City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Peterson, can I ask you a question? Mr. Peterson: -- to include 10th --I'm sorry? Commissioner Sarnoff. Do you --? I was there with my sergeant very recently and somebody said that they were hired by you to watch the cars, and they seemed to be panhandling at the same time. Mr. Peterson: We do have a gentleman that is a frequent panhandler that is not hired by us -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Mr. Peterson: -- but he does -- Commissioner Sarnoff. You should be aware of that. Mr. Peterson: Yes. He's out there quite frequently, outside parking cars and -- Chair Sanchez: But it's just not one. Mr. Peterson: No, no. There are many, but there's one -- Commissioner Sarnoff. There's one man that apparently -- Mr. Peterson: -- in particular. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- represents -- Mr. Peterson: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- andl think he's got the telephone number to your place -- Mr. Peterson: He does. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- and he tells other people that he's been hired by you to watch their cars. Mr. Peterson: I did not know that part of it, but he is out there parking cars and working the street. Commissioner Sarnoff. Matter of fact, if you'd like to see my sergeant of [sic] arms before you leave, he could probably give you who he is. Mr. Peterson: Okay. Thank you. But in that, we would like to include 10th Street in this proposal. Thank you for your time. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Kevin Amiott: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Amiott, general manager/operating partner of the Ocean Aire Seafood Room. We're located at 900 South Miami Avenue, Suite 111. It's the northwest corner of 10th and South Miami Avenue. We were first part of the Mary Brickell Village and, you know, we spent a lot of money and -- to get this place going. I think it's a great area, and it is growing tremendously and very fast. It's bringing a lot of influx of people, which has brought the panhandling to an extreme. A little scenario: Last Friday night, I was City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 running the door, and there's a gentleman I've probably asked 35 times to leave the property. Andl have two elderly ladies standing out front waiting for someone to pick them up in the car, and he's out there; got them -- I have a 80-year-old lady shaking, scared, you know. Andl try to tell them, oh, it's not a regular occurrence. I know I'm lying to them, butl want them to come back and eat at my restaurant. They had a great experience. I talked to them on the way out. But think this is a great ordinance, and appreciate you hearing my thoughts. If there's any questions or anything you have comments for me, I'm more than welcome (UNINTELLIGIBLE) - Commissioner Sarnoff. What's the restaurant again? Mr. Amiott: The Ocean Aire Seafood Room. Commissioner Sarnoff. Ocean Aire. Chair Sanchez: You know it very well. Commissioner Sarnoff. I've been there many times. Mr. Amiott: Thank you for your time. Chair Sanchez: I can't afford to eat there. Robert Geitner: Good afternoon. Robert Geitner, resident, 801 Brickell Bay Drive. I -- many of you know me from the DMP. I'm speaking here as a resident. I am one of those 24/7 downtowners. I walk to work most days of the week. Most days of the week, my path takes me right in front of a Starbucks, where I pick up my morning cup of coffee. And for the last three years, a very well put together grandmotherly looking woman has managed to lose her purse every single day of the week and approaches me for money to figure out a way to get back to the bus or call up a friend to come pick her up. And there are days of the week when I just don't want to deal with her, so I walk away from the Starbucks and drink the cup ofFolgers that the DMP thoughtfully provides for me every morning. So I wanted to point out that this is about economics, about my not going and getting my morning cup of joe every morning when I want to. Thanks. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Marie Balbuena: Good afternoon. My name is Marie Balbuena. I'm the marketing director at Bayside Marketplace. Unfortunately, our neighbors, north and south, of Bayside, the American Airlines Arena, the Intercontinental, and Mary Brickell Village could not attend today, but they had given me the authorization to speak on their behalf and we're in support of this ordinance. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Josie Correa: Hi. Josie Correa, executive director of Downtown Miami Partnership, 25 Southeast 2ndAvenue, Suite 240. I'm just here to obviously ask for your support. As you know, panhandling in downtown creates a negative experience for customers in our cafes, retail establishments, and businesses in general. And the substantial investments that the City of Miami property owners and developers have made to the downtown area is negatively impacted by the panhandling that we have to deal with as workers, as visitors everyday in downtown Miami. So once again, we ask you, as I did in first reading, to please support this on behalf of the downtown business community. This is not an issue of panhandling. It's an issue of -- I mean, it's not an issue of homeless; it's an issue of panhandling and we need your support. Thank you very much. City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Yes, sir. Alex Rodriguez: Good afternoon. Alex Rodriguez. I am -- 345 Northeast 2ndAvenue. I own the McDonald's restaurant, and I'm here to show my support for this ordinance, andl respectfully disagree with people that are not in favor. The panhandling is the number -one issue that my employees andl have to deal with in my restaurant. We try to do what's right and ask them not to do it, but they get very aggressive. I've had my restaurant vandalized by panhandlers. My bathrooms are consistently vandalized My register systems are thrown down. I respectfully disagree with the issue. I am not against the homeless. I will do whatever I can as a business owner to support the homeless in our community. However, panhandling is the problem, and we need to -- I'm here to support this initiative, andl thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Marcia Gomez: Good afternoon. My name is Marcia Gomez. I'm with Miami International University of Art and Design. We are in the Omni Mall, and you know, as a college and university, it is something that seriously concerns us, especially with our students coming in and out all the time and they often have classes 'til 10 o'clock at night. They use the facilities for many different reasons, including lab hours and whatnot, and we are in favor of the ordinance. And we're, moreover, in favor of including it up to 19th Street to include the entire mall 'cause at this point believe that it cuts it off right in the middle of the mall, so it seems a little bit odd to stop it at 17th Street, which would cut it in half. And we are in favor of it, and thank you very much for your time. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Ms. Gomez: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yes, sir. Bob Powers: How are you? Commissioner Sarnoff. How are you? Mr. Powers: Bob Powers. I live at 565 Northeast 66 Street. The only reason I'm up here is because I'm the vice president of operations for the MiMo (Miami Modern) Biscayne Association. When you guys close off the tap downtown, they're heading up to my neighborhood, okay, 'cause that's exactly what's going to happen. They're just going to move from one location to another location, and the thing is is that our -- we do have outdoor dining already in many, many of our -- and we do not want these kind of people coming into that district. They're just -- we don't want them. We don't want them up there. And any way that you can attack this, you can attack this. And one little story on the sideline. There's a guy who works 79th Street and 1-95 in a wheelchair with no leg panhandling. He owns a home in Miami Shores, free and clear from all the money he's picked up from panhandling on that corner. And so it's not really -- sometimes it's just what they do. That's what they do and that's their business, so maybe it isn't -- but I don't know. We just don't want them coming up into our district. So I mean, when you look at this ordinance, please know that -- I'm sure Little Havana and places like that have the same problem with some of these people and we're going to have it too 'cause all of our business is on the street, it's all on the boulevard. So -- and we've already -- Commissioner Sarnoff. So, Bob, are you asking us not to pass this or to --? Mr. Powers: No. I'm asking you to pass it, but just to also -- like you might want to broaden your scope and know that eventually somewhere along the line it's going to come up. This is City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 going to come up for our district as well. And we already have that problem. As you know, 79th Street and Biscayne Boulevard is already a haven for homeless people, and we've already had a number of our restaurateurs have fights and stuff like that with people sleeping in doorways and things of that nature. The worst thing about it is they urinate everywhere. That's the worst part about it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Claudia Bergouignan: Good afternoon. My name is Claudia Bergouignan, andl work at TotalBank at 21 WestFlagler Street. I've been there for 20 years, and I'm here to support and hopefully you pass this ordinance. We have many aggressive panhandlers that are right outside of the bank. We -- I am concerned for our customers who come to use the ATM (Automated Teller Machine) and the panhandlers know that there's money involved with the customers coming in and out of the bank, and they're always there at the door of the bank waiting for the customers to come in and out. I have customers that call me that they're concerned about coming into the branch if there's anybody standing outside 'cause they don't want to come in when they have large deposits to make, so it is a concern for the safety of our customers as well as our employees. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Yes, sir. Jose Goyanes: Commissioners, good afternoon. Jose Goyanes, with offices at 4 Southeast 1st Street, in beautiful downtown Miami. First of all, I've sat here and listened to every story and the one that really got to me was when the ACLU can come up here and stand and tell you that this is harmless activity. This activity harms every business owner where it hurts the most, in their pocketbook. And when I don't have money to donate to these good organizations, it comes from my customers running away because of the perception of homelessness, panhandling, all of it. When somebody comes into my business passively, ask for money with a card saying that they can't read, they can't write, and then you ask them to leave and they run around you and walk around your entire business, when they walk over with a cup without really asking for money, when they pull up a chair and sit down next to your restaurant when you're having a good meal, this affects the pocketbook. It's not harmless activity. It harms your pocketbook. Business owners in downtown have been dealing with this problem, and it's basically become attacks, attacks that you don't have to deal with if you operate a business in many other cities [sic] in Miami. You don't have this tax [sic] in Coconut Grove; you don't have it in Coral Gables; you don't have it on Lincoln Road. This tax [sic] has been burdening our community, our business community in downtown Miami for far too long, so I thank you for your support on this. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Rafael Kapustin: Rafael Kapustin, 25 Southeast 2ndAvenue, property owner. I'm here basically to support this ordinance. You saw me here on first reading. I also want -- I'm grateful to all parties for actually getting together and working out something that is acceptable to all. The main reason I came up here now is -- 'cause you've had a lot of people in favor -- I do want to take exception to a comment that was made here. And as a downtown lover, I can't sit back and just hear that. I think some of the people here, like Ron Book, might remember that it was downtown the first community who said 'yes, in my backyard." Downtown has been in the forefront of doing assistance for the homeless when no other neighborhood did, so I do take -- I respectfully take objection to the fact that we're here asking for this ordinance. This has nothing to do with homelessness. This is -- panhandling is unacceptable, andl urge you to vote for it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. David Lithgow: Good afternoon. My name is David Lithgow, corporate director for the City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Biscayne building on 19 West Flagler Street. We are a family -run business for the last 50 years. On behalf of myself, my family, and our 83 tenants in our building, we are big proponents of this ordinance. The last 50 years, it's been my family's experience that the few have been ruining it for the majority for too long, and it's got to stop. It's not economically viable. It's, in a lot of cases, a real tragedy that downtown Miami has been such a black eye for so long, and it's an embarrassment, and I'm embarrassed; andl would be happy to see this ordinance passed. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Yes, sir. Gary Ressler: Good afternoon. Gary Ressler, ABC Management Services. We are at the Alfred I Dupont building at 169 East Flagler Street. I'm here both in my capacity as the asset manager and owner's representative for the Dupont building, as well as three other properties in downtown, and as president of the Downtown Miami Partnership, which represents over 250 of the businesses in the downtown corridor. We are in support of this ordinance, which is, I want to repeat, not a homeless issue. This is about the economic vitality of a neighborhood. We have tenants, such as Barney's Cafe with an open street -side cafe, who oftentimes need to pull in their street -side tables because of the panhandling that's going on in downtown and deterring clients from coming in and buying their coffee. There are other cafes in downtown that have been forced to do the same thing. If you'll notice Starbucks, for instance, doesn't -- does not have as many tables outside as they used to. We are in support of this initiative and this -- and believe that this is important for the economic vitality of downtown Miami. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? I'm going to bring it back to the Commission. Chair Sanchez: No, wait. Jay wants to put something in the record. Commissioner Sarnoff. Jay, would you like to tell them how that happened to you? It was aggressive panhandling, right? Mr. Solowsky: Actually, it was Commissioner Regalado twisting my arm at the first meeting. The speakers have provided to you their concerns and the legitimate basis for why this Commission should exercise its discretion in enacting this ordinance. I would now like to go through with you and request that with regard to the ordinance itself, item 2 -- (b) (2) (d), which is the penalty provision, that it be amended so that the words for second violation will read: "The second violation shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $100 -- Chair Sanchez: Or. Mr. Solowsky: -- or 30 days imprisonment; and third and subsequent violations shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $200 or 60 days imprisonment." I thought that Mr. Burton's comments, I thought Mr. Raymond's comments, and Mr. Book's comments were extremely well taken, and if a Commissioner would propose an amendment so that it changes the language so that it's one or the other, the DDA would certainly support it. I have a few other things, but that would be first. Chair Sanchez: Jay, why don't you put them all into the record to -- Mr. Solowsky: Okay. That's number one. Chair Sanchez: -- include the warning signs. Mr. Solowsky: Well, the warning is now in there because, pursuant to the first reading, we were directed to go back and have these meetings, and so what is presented to you is consistent with City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 the charge we were given at the first meeting. The other changes would be if you look at the maps that handed out at the beginning, you will see that, for example, on the second page in the proposed additional areas, you've had a speaker come up and ask that the Omni be added, and you've had a speaker come up and ask that 15th Street, along where Miami International University, be added. It is not the DDA's recommendation that those areas be added at this time in that we do not, at this point, see sufficient economic activity. To the extent that the Omni is redeveloped, clearly, we would be supportive of an amendment to the ordinance at that time to include the additional area. With regard to the area from Biscayne Boulevard -- that's in blue -- from 9th up through the Performing Arts Center, we, likewise, do not recommend that that area be added at this time. With regard to the Brickell Village area, we do not believe that the Brickell Avenue portion, running from Southwest 8th Street to Southwest 15th Road, be added because there's most -- there's office building and one or two restaurants, but there's not a lot of economic activity there. So if you look at the third page, you will see what we recommend, which would also include 2ndAvenue, which would take into account the McDonald's; would include 7th and 8th Street, which would take into account the Mary Brickell Village and would extend on South Miami Avenue where you have the Segafredo, you have the -- all of the other restaurants now going in there we think that that makes sense to add. With regard to the comments made about Southeast 1st Avenue and Southeast 2nd Street, we agree that that should be added, and we've extended that down through Biscayne Boulevard Way because that is now where you see Met 1, Met 2; you also see the Manny Steakhouse opening there, and that is also the site of where the Whole Foods will be, and we think that that should be included. So we would recommend that, subject to the Commission making an amendment, this map that is provided as the third page of the maps I gave you be attached to the ordinance; that the description of the streets be changed so as to include those DDA-recommended additional areas. Now we also will ask that the City Attorney comment with regard to the issue concerning the definitions. We have noticed today that the ACLU refuses to take a stand on what they do think might or might not be constitutional because whatever it is that is passed, they would attend to attack anyway, regardless of what it is that the Commission would do. And we've asked for their input, and they have declined to provide it. But what they have said, as reported today in the Miami Today, is that they now believe that the definition that is included somehow violates First Amendment rights. We understand that this ordinance does, in fact, affect First Amendment rights. That does not make it unconstitutional because the government has the ability to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protected speech, provided that they're narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. And that's why we've asked you not to include all of the additional areas that people are asking for because we don't see it, as of this point, being so consistent with government interest, and we want to leave open ample areas and channels for the communication of information by panhandlers. There's plenty of area that they can panhandle. In fact, if you include everything that the DDA is recommending, you would then be at 6.33 miles of streets, which is seven -tenths of one percent of the streets in this city, which we provide -- which we believe provides ample area for panhandlers to engage in protected First Amendment activity. The Fort Lauderdale ordinance, which was upheld, covers 6.5 miles in a much smaller city, so we would be under that; we would be seven -tenths of one percent. And yes, we will be challenged, but we need to deal with and request that the City Attorney advise us regarding the fact that the ACLU now indicates they're going to challenge the definitional section that we have added as to whether or not we were better without it or with it, andl would ask that the City Attorney opine as to that and opine that, with these requested changes, should the Commission propose these amendments, that it does not constitute -- or does constitute a substantial change requiring an additional reading. Chair Sanchez: That's a good question. Veronica Xiques: Good afternoon, Commission. Veronica Xiques, assistant city attorney. I had a lot of points to address, but Jay has done a tremendous job today, so I just want to talk to you about the definition. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, in 1998, stated "The absence of more limiting language than the terms themselves begging, City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 panhandling, solicitation is the very thing that saves the rule from vagueness. The lack of definition for the term does not render them vague. Rather, they are common words known to everyone with ordinary intelligence and are used in a single straightforward declaratory sentence." What or -- our ordinance says on second reading -- it says, as a prohibition, begging or panhandling is prohibited within the downtown business district. In our opinion, that is a clear statement that does not require further definition. It would be our recommendation that the Commission adopt the ordinance without the definition of panhandling included. Commissioner Sarnoff. Veronica, if we actually use the definition now -- the definition presently says panhandling is defined as any solicitation made in person in which a request is made for an immediate donation of money or other gratuity from another person. My car breaks down in downtown andl have no money in my pocket andl go to proceed to someone, "Canl borrow a quarter to make a phone call?" Would that be considered panhandling? Ms. Xiques: Under that definition, yes, it would, and that was never the intent of the DDA. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff. You want to be heard? Mr. Book: Please. Mr. Chairman, our suggestion is that you leave the definition. We think it's a wise definition. We believe it creates some comfort. But as I said in my first set of comments, if what you want to do is add language that says that such and such and such and such is excluded from this definition -- and that is commonly done throughout the Florida Statutes, throughout ordinances everywhere -- I think that's a way to solve the problem, Commissioner, that you have raised, number one, and number two, that speaks to the concern that some others like the Salvation Army and others have had who do legitimate fundraising without it being an offensive and prohibitive type conduct, andl think that would be a better way to get there than simply striking the definition altogether. Commissioner Sarnoff. You know, Ron, I think you're trying to define the undefinable. It's almost like asking somebody what is pornography. And well, pornography is this, but it's not this, this, this, this and this. They're almost undefinable terms. They're human activities. I -- you know, I actually did a paper on free speech when I was in law school. You can almost never define what speech is. I actually agree with the City Attorney. Chair Sanchez: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. I think you'd be better suited and better put to let a court decide whether this was panhandling versus does this fit your definition of panhandling with the exclusions that you've put in the ordinance. Mr. Book: I would only close by saying the following because I don't want to get into a back and forth. Commissioner Sarnoff. I understand. Mr. Book: First of all, you andl would agree what the definition of pornography is because the court has told us about prurient interests and the like, but that said, my concern is if you take it out, I think you're going to get an additional layer of opposition down the road, which may put us in a worsened position from a litigation perspective, but I sense the sentiment of the Commission. Ms. Xiques: IfI may, Commissioners. One of the requirements to have a law that does prohibit First Amendment speech is that it be content neutral. We're of the opinion that if you ban City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 specific speech, including the Salvation Army, Girl Scout cookies, high school teens raising money for team uniforms and that sort of behavior, at that point, you're crossing the line into what is and is not content neutral. By simply letting the common definition of panhandling, which Webster's defines as "to accost on the street and beg from; to get by panhandling, "I think it's very clear. The case law of what the definition says, it is a commonly -used word. Everyone knows what it is, andl think that's something that you need to keep in mind when voting on this and you need to remember that content neutrality is something that is very important. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. Mr. Solowsky: So there would be three effective amendments. One would be to change the penalty language to the "or" that I read into the record before. The second would be, should it be to your desire, to eliminate the definitional section of panhandling, and third would be to attach -- Chair Sanchez: The map. Mr. Solowsky: -- the revised map, and then the City Attorney would have to give you the street coordinates to go along with the map for the DDA-recommended additional areas. And finally, I just want to point out, Commissioner Sanchez, I had, a month or two ago, handed you a copy of the Zagat's from -- and Zagat's was nationwide on Italian restaurants, and it talked about La Loggia in Miami. And the second comment in that Zagat's was the restaurant's great, but Miami is deserted -- Chair Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Solowsky: -- at night, and that is a problem. And if Miami is going to be an economically vital city, that problem needs to be addressed, and the DDA believes that this ordinance helps to address it. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you. All right. It comes back to the Commission for discussion. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Chairman [sic], at this time, I would make a motion on second reading to add the amendments that are proffered by Jay to include the current map, and of course, as he stated with the recommendation of the City Attorney, without the definition. Commissioner Sarnoff. As well as the penalty change? Chair Sanchez: Yeah. That's -- including the attached map with the boundary change. Commissioner Sarnoff. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: I will second for discussion. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Chair Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me start by thanking Legal on both side [sic], the City Attorney and Jay, who has done an incredible job at the DDA. He's taken this upon himself, working with the City Attorney to craft this legislation. I want to thank Alice, the interim director, the entire staff at the DDA. But above all, I want to thank the different organizations that we had an opportunity to sit down with, and based on their professionalism, we were able to come out with some compromises and understandings that basically make this definition -- this ordinance better defined. Let me just state that we live in the greatest country on earth, and we are truly blessed. And the reason why we are the greatest country in the world is because we respect our institutions, we respect our laws, and we respect people's rights. This City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 ordinance that's in front of us, it is not a homeless issue. It has never been a homeless issue. Citizens have rights. Everyone has rights, and where your rights end, they begin for someone else. People have the right not to be bothered. People have the right not to be threatened. People have the right to enjoy good quality of life. The facts of this ordinance it's -- that it's in front of you because the people have asked for it; the people that visit downtown, the people that work in downtown, the people that live in downtown, and the businesses of downtown. And it is - - it's an ordinance that basically does one thing for this great city: It protects the economic engine of our city. And the facts are here. Downtown Miami is critical to the economy and the health of this city. It provides $9 billion to this city in tax bases, folks. That's 25 percent of the tax that comes into this city comes from downtown Miami, which we must protect forever. Over 225 million in development impact fee just alone. The businesses that are there employ people from the City. There's close to 10, 000 businesses that are located in downtown, and could tell you that, based on the great work that we're doing at the DDA, it has been through the public input when we walked that you listen to people complain, and the number -one complaint in downtown continues to be panhandling. If you're homeless, you're welcome in downtown; you could walk through downtown. You know, homeless is not a crime, but panhandling is a crime and could be a crime. We have compromised in this ordinance that's in front of us, and it was important for us to sit down with the different entities, the Homeless Trust, the Coalition for Homeless, and we even sat down -- not myself -- but we had our attorney and DDA sit down with ACLU because this Commission suggested that we sit down with everyone to find a compromise. This ordinances [sic], which is less than one percent of the entire City, focuses on what is the economic engine of the City and we must protect that. When I met with the Homeless Trust, we sat down and had a good meal over at the HAC (Homeless Assistance Center), and we spoke about how they get their funding. Their funding comes from restaurants and meals. Now the last thing that you want to do is have a restaurant where you're sitting out -- and I'm sure it's happened to many here 'cause it's happened to me on more than just once [sic] occasion -- where you're sitting at a restaurant and you're having a nice, quiet meal, and all of a sudden, you get tapped on the shoulder by someone who's asking you for a dollar or two. And then, when you don't provide that dollar or two, you're verbally abused, and that's a problem that we have in this city. So if we don't address this now, we're going to continue to harm the businesses in downtown, and the DDA's role, as well as our role here, wearing a different hat, legislators, is that we need to create these laws, which I call them tough love. It is tough love. Once we started talking about this ordinance, everybody focused on the homeless. Oh, you're going to go after the innocent. You're going to go after the people that can't help themselves. We're blessed to have great organizations that provide great service to our homeless in our city, but we have to take a responsibility to make sure that we protect those businesses that provide financial assistance to these organizations. So that's why I'm here today asking my colleagues to support this ordinance, and not because of me, because of all the businesses that have come together asking that this ordinance be passed. So therefore, I ask you to support this ordinance and pass this ordinance on second reading. Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much. I think -- I don't want to be repetitive and talk about that this is not about the homeless issue, butl do have technical question. I know that the constitutional issues and all the different interpretations of what is been written will be probably dealt with in court, but I do have technical questions. And the first question is about enforcement. I don't know who could answer that. I hope that somebody could. And it's very simple. How do you issue a warning the first time? How do you know that that person has not been warned before? That's -- George Wysong: George Wysong, assistant -- Commissioner Regalado: George. City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Wysong: -- City Attorney, City ofMiami police legal advisor as well. This would -- we were talking about this question because there is no recordkeeping of the warnings or whatnot, but this would be very similarly treated as we do with say a trespass after warning. The officer would indicate on the arrest affidavit, if he had to make an arrest, that "On this date I warned the individual not to panhandle. On a subsequent occasion, I returned, and the individual was still panhandling," so that would be the best way to reflect that the individual was warned. Commissioner Regalado: Okay. It's fine. I'm just -- because as we all know, some panhandlers are not passive and they will come back. So that leads to -- andl was hoping you said that because that leads to the other technical question thatl have, and it's about resources. Now one of the requests for many years of downtowners is police presence and police resources, and as a matter of fact, I walked -- I have walked several places in downtown where the merchants, in a voluntary way, have sign off with the police department so the police can go into their private property, which, by the way, could be -- it's not a violation of property rights because the property owners have -- are inviting the police department, and so that is an issue of important [sic]. The other issue is, well, you know, it's -- tourism needs to be protected, but at the same time, needs to see a police present [sic] to feel safe. So my question is, what is the priority of the resources that we have now in downtown, and can -- andl will ask you, as the legal advisor to the police -- DDA pay for additional overtime, not additional police officers, but for overtime, double shift, in order -- not to deal with panhandling only, but to deal with all the securities issues that are pertinent to downtown? Mr. Wysong: I believe they could. And you struck on the topic that I was afraid you were going to ask, could they hire officers to just strictly enforce the panhandling ordinance. Andl would recommend against that because -- Commissioner Regalado: Well, it's impossible to recommend. I mean, you'd have to be a little cuckoo to recommend you hire an officer just to do panhandling because if you see -- if you have an officer that is being paid to enforce the panhandling but he break -- he sees a guy breaking a window on a car, that officer is a police officer 24 hours a day and is going to arrest that person that just broke the window in the car, so that's out of the question. I would never thought that you can only hire a police officer for panhandling, but my issue is not about can he do panhandling, can he do this; it's about resources. Andl have to refer -- and we have Major Caceres here who deals with the area that we represent. Unfortunately, now in the Flagami area, out of two NROs (Neighborhood Resource Officers), we have one because one of them has been taken to gang unit and the other, she has moved to other unit. So we have one, where we had two, which were great. So our concern here -- and we passed the other day, thanks to Commissioner Gonzalez, an ordinance that could allow the police to keep the police. We passed budget to bring more police, but we all know that the reality is that we need more police and we don't have more police now, so my question is, are we capable, in downtown Miami, to enforce in a way that it makes a difference in the first 90 days of this ordinance -- because the expectations of these people are really high -- do we have the resources to do that or should DDA use the money that the people in downtown and Brickell and Brickell Key are paying to them in order to enforce that ordinance? Major Steven Caceres: Major Steven Caceres, City ofMiami Police Department. Commissioner, to answer the first question, we do have the resources to enforce any ordinance that the Commission wishes us to enforce. Any additional resources through DDA or any other type of funding will be, of course, welcome, but yes, we do have the resources in whatever enforcement we need to take, if it's the homeless or panhandling or any misdemeanor/felony crime. Commissioner Regalado: Na I know how dedicated are the police officer. I'm just saying that this is an additional task for the police department, and it will be a priority. For instance, several years ago, your predecessor brought the dog ordinance, and to my knowledge, the police City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 is not enforcing that. They're still doing what they did before, the dogs, I mean. And they have not -- no citations have been issued. What I'm talking about is about perception, the perception that all of you spoke about it. And if you don't see results, you will -- people would believe that this is just another law in the books. So I'm just saying that there's got to be a commitment from the DDA to use their resources to save the area that they have bet on it because these people are really to be commended to bet on downtown for so many years, like Kapustin, who's been there for. So my question is, would you recommend that they do use DDA resources to supplement the police resources in downtown? Major Caceres: Commissioner, that's a question that I guess the Commission would have to make. For us, like I said, we welcome any additional funding that the Commission wishes to put into this ordinance, but at this time, we welcome anything, but we're more than capable of enforcing any ordinance that the Commission would like us to enforce or any law at this time. Commissioner Regalado: Okay. Thank you. And the other -- the last question I have is -- this is about signage. It was mentioned that there -- the DDA will place signs. So what will they say? Mr. Solowsky: There will be "No Panhandling" signs. We're working on language. We will place it in every area where panhandling is prohibited so as to put citizens of ordinary intelligence on notice that the activity of panhandling is not permitted in that location. Commissioner Regalado: And the signs -- are there signs in other areas of the country that you can model to? Mr. Solowsky: I have not yet seen signs, except in Las Vegas, which were very broad and difficult to understand. I think they need to be very simple, Commissioner, andl think that they need to obviously be in a way that people understand. We're now looking at that, and we're going to provide them in the entire area where panhandling would be prohibited. Commissioner Regalado: And it would be in different languages? Mr. Solowsky: Oh, absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Solowsky: You're welcome. Commissioner Sarnoff Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: I just have one simple question. Is the ordinance constitutional? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Commissioner, we've done all the research that we can to make sure that we have tailored this ordinance within the parameters that have been set forth by the Eleventh Circuit in the case that came out of Fort Lauderdale. We believe that the ordinance is constitutional. And also, with respect to the question that was previously asked about whether there is a substantial modification between what was presented on first reading, and since you -- if you adopt the recommendations of the additional areas that are being included and the language that's being added and deleted, the answer to that is no. I think that the original purpose of the ordinance stays the same. The title stays the same, so there is no need to bring it to another reading. Commissioner Gonzalez: So, as my attorney, you tell me that I can be confident on voting yes on this ordinance? Ms. Bru: As confident as one can be when you're dealing with the area of the First Amendment. City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 It is the most difficult area to legislate in, but we have done everything possible to set a record to show why this advances a substantial governmental interest. We have narrowly tailored it. We have left open alternative channels of communication, andl think that we have done all that we can. We can never guarantee, especially in the area of First Amendment, but we can tell you that you should feel comfortable about it. Commissioner Gonzalez: Okay. When you violate -- the last thing that I want to do is violate anybody's civil rights or constitutional rights. If this case go to court and they decide to sue, they will sue the City or they will sue each one of us independently? Ms. Bru: No. Commissioners, we -- you are going to adopt legislation based on the legal -- Commissioner Gonzalez: And my question -- you know, people are laughing. Ms. Bru: No, they will not. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- is -- Ms. Bru: They will sue -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- that I was put in that position -- Ms. Bru: No. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- once -- Ms. Bru: Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- andl remember, in this chamber, there was only one attorney smart enough that said no and the rest of us said yes. Chair Sanchez: And we got sued. Commissioner Gonzalez: And all of us got served papers, and he, you know -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, Commissioner -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- was home free. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- no one will ever prevent another lawyer from suing us, butt know that every one of us voting today will be acting in our official capacity based upon the record before us and not based on any kind of arbitrary or capricious thoughts that we might have, and we'd only be acting in our official capacity. Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. So -- Ms. Bru: No, Commissioner. You don't have to be worried about being sued individually in this case. Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. Very good. All right. Chair Sanchez: IfI could -- Commissioner Gonzalez: I also hope that these panhandlers that you're getting rid of in downtown, don't send them to Allapattah like everything in the City -- what you don't want, you City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 send to my district -- because then I will be coming back with another ordinance, okay, so -- Chair Sanchez: I just -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Commissioner Sanchez. Chair Sanchez: For point of clarification on one issue, Commander, can you come back up? I just want to get the quick version of this. We're certainly not going to pass an ordinance that we don't have the resources to enforce. Now you need to put on the record that we do have the resources in downtown and we will enforce this ordinance once it's passed Major Caceres: Commissioner, just like I said earlier, we have resources in downtown. The resources, of course, will be put in priority, like it was mentioned. If at that time, we have three burglaries in progress, we're going to put those resources on the burglary in progress. Chair Sanchez: That's fine. Major Caceres: If that day -- and as you know, police work is, you know, something that's unpredictable -- if we have available resources, then those resources would -- if they see the panhandling and they see the illegal violations, they'll be addressing that. You know, if we have a situation where in downtown we have traffic and a lot of things going on downtown and this is not our priority, then the priority of the crime would take place, so -- Chair Sanchez: And the DDA will follow through to get statistics to make sure that these laws are being enforced. And on the police issue, we approved in the last budget more police officers that are coming in that are going through their academy right now, soon to go through their FTO (Field Training Officer) program and soon to be going out on the streets, as well as PSAs (Public Service Aides). I know that a lot of those numbers will be going to downtown Miami, so we should have enforcement. We should have bodies out there to make sure of that. Because what's the purpose of us spending all this resource and time passing legislation and we're not going to have neither the muscle nor the bodies to enforce it, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff. You know, since I've been on this Commission, I've always been surprised -- that I'm losing my voice is what I'm surprised at -- I'm always surprised at how we don't do more to support the people that pay the taxes and generate the business for the City of Miami. And we're up here asking to exercise discretion, and discretion is the exercising of competing interests. That means that we're here to weigh the competing interests. And it seems all too often we don't see the interests of a vital downtown Miami. We don't see the interests of promoting businesses in the City of Miami. I am surprised, as I sit here, as I've read some of the case law, that panhandling is, to some judges, protected speech. If it is protected speech, in my opinion, it would have to be commercial speech and not political speech, and it shouldn't be afforded strict scrutiny. But I think here, as Commissioners, that we have an obligation, and that obligation is to always support those who pull on the same end of the rope as us, the business community. The business community is the one that gets hurt day in and day out by panhandling. It is the businesses in downtown that people say why would you possibly want to go downtown and be bothered. And yet, La Loggia probably anywhere else could charge twice what it charges for its food for as good as it is, but for the fact it's downtown. And I do recommend everybody try it; it's very, very good. Chair Sanchez: Don't give Jose any ideas. Commissioner Sarnoff. I won't give Jose any ideas. So I do find it perplexing and strange that we're actually not doing this on a larger basis, on a more broad spectrum basis when we're only accounting for point six or point seven percent of our city's streets. And I'm not here to change that aspect of it because the ACLU has told us that they will be filing a constitutional challenge City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 to this, and that's their right. I am -- also want everybody to know that it was the ACLU that couldn't tell us what we could do to make this a constitutional provision, and that speaks volumes too because under their analysis, panhandling, in general, no matter what, is constitutionally protected activity. Andl -- trust me on this, it cannot be across-the-board spectrum constitutional activity. It's got to be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and what we are doing today is placing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. We are saying, in our urban core, where we are promoting tourism and we are promoting foot traffic, that this is a place that we do not want panhandling, and yet, in 99.3 percent of the city, we're saying it's still allowed, just don't do it aggressively. So I urge all my fellow Commissioners, without regard to whether they will ever be sued personally because I suggest that a court of law would dismiss that immediately because it would be a very, I think, futile lawsuit because I don't think anybody is acting up here arbitrary and capriciously. All we're doing is listening to the evidence that's provided before us and making an informed decision based on what we've heard before us. And suggest to you that this City Commission needs to, from this day forward start listening and putting a better ear and a better shoulder behind the business community. Thank you. Applause. Chair Sanchez: All right. Read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted, as modified, on second reading, 4/0. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Applause. Chair Sanchez: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, all those who labored so hard to get this ordinance passed. Thank you. City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 FR.1 08-00508 District 2- Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff ORDINANCES - FIRST READING ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING AND ADDING NEW PROVISIONS TO CHAPTER 38, ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION," ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "USE REGULATIONS," SECTION 38-60, ENTITLED "BOATING," OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CODE") AND TO CHAPTER 38, ARTICLE VI, ENTITLED "VIRGINIA KEY BEACH PARK TRUST," OF THE CODE, TO ESTABLISH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND TO ESTABLISH AN EXCLUSION/SAFETY ZONE WHEREBY NO MOTORIZED BOATING, NO MOTORIZED VESSEL, AND NO OTHER MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT ACTIVITIES MAY TAKE PLACE IN AND AROUND CERTAIN AREAS OF THE WATERS OFF CITY -OWNED AREAS OF VIRGINIA KEY, ATLANTIC BEACH AREA, NORTHEAST OF BEAR CUT AS SET FORTH IN "COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND DESIGNATING SUCH EXCLUSION/SAFETY ZONE AS A "NO WAKE ZONE;" MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING AND ADDING: (1) TO ARTICLE II, NEW PROVISIONS TO EXISTING SECTION 38-60, AND (2) TO ARTICLE VI, NEW SECTIONS 38-243 THROUGH 38-247 OF SAID CODE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERTAKE AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY APPLICATIONS WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, AND UNITED STATES AGENCIES TO ESTABLISH THE PROPOSED BUOY LINES FOR SAID EXCLUSION/SAFETY ZONE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00508 Exhibit 1.pdf 08-00508 Exhibit 2.pdf 08-00508 Legislation V2.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: All right. Let's move on. Let's go to FR.1. FR.1. Commissioner Sarnoff, you want to present this or do you want --? Commissioner Sarnoff. I -- there is -- there's actually -- the Virginia Key Trust is actually here, andl know they have a PowerPoint presentation, andl know they are infinitely more prepared than me. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff. I know David Shorter's back there. Will you be --? Chair Sanchez: How long is this presentation going to take? Guy Forchion (Director of Operations, Virginia Key Beach Park Trust): It is a two -slide presentation, andl would imagine -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Go ahead. City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Forchion: -- very brief. Chair Sanchez: Go to it. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Just have -- making sure that we have a name for the record, please. Chair Sanchez: The man needs no introduction. Ms. Thompson: I know who he is; you know who he is, but does the public know? Mr. Forchion: Guy Forchion, Virginia Key Beach Park Trust, 4020 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Sir, you're recognized for the record. It's an ordinance on first reading. Mr. Forchion: Good afternoon. Thank you, City Commissioners. I just want to take a very brief moment to generally explain this. This is the placement of 23 "No Motorized Boating" buoys off of the Atlantic side ofBear's Cut off of Virginia Key. And this slide shows the island from above, andl will use my cursor, if possible, and show just generally this area. This is Rickenbacker Causeway, and this would take 23 buoys that would move along offshore from historic Virginia Key Beach on around the curve and contour of the island to this point, and it would place those as the specs that were given by our ocean engineer, Andy Nicholson, who is here today, andl do want to turn this over to him to give some greater detail. Andl will go to the next slide, and this shows where he has plotted those buoys for installation. Mr. Nicholson, if you'd like to give some greater detail on exactly how this will work. Andrew Nicholson: Good afternoon. My name is Andy Nicholson. I'm the president of Challenger Enterprises, Incorporated, Safety Harbor, Florida, in Florida, and a professional engineer and land surveyor. And I've been asked by the Trust to work within federal, state, and county ordinance, as well as City rules to develop an identified area to exclude boats for the general protection of those that are enjoying the beach along the island. This is all within the City limits. Coast Guard -- I've done a number of these in a number of communities and the Coast Guard will not allow you to go more than 300 feet, and so we've recommended the full stretch of 300 feet. These buoys are spaced approximately 400 feet apart. They cannot be installed -- permits will not be issued unless they've been supported by -- with an ordinance from this body, so your ordinance is essential to the process. This would then allow the police department to participate in the enforcement. The buoys become the evidence that identify an infraction. When somebody is landward of the line between two buoys, we have the infraction, and so -- and that is fairly simple. It takes a while to get the permits, but it starts with the action before you today. Thank you. I'm open to questions. Chair Sanchez: All right. Any questions? If not, anyone from the public wishing to address this item on first reading? Public hearing is opened. Seeing no one, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff, you're recognized for the record. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'll do a motion to approve, as submitted. Chair Sanchez: All right. Is there a second? Commissioner Regalado: Second. City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Gonzalez: It's a resolution, isn't it? Chair Sanchez: No. It's an ordinance on first reading. Commissioner Gonzalez: It's an ordinance? Chair Sanchez: It's got to come back to us, yeah. All right. No discussion on the ordinance. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, let me just say this. I'm going to move that this go to the Waterfront Board on June 11 so they at least have the opportunity to hear this, and I think our second reading is on June 12. Chair Sanchez: I'm all in agreement with that, but why didn't this go through the Waterfront Board first? Commissioner Sarnoff. It goes with your theory, which is let's pass it first and then -- Chair Sanchez: All right, but I mean, it should have gone through the Waterfront Board first. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, it may not be a bad idea to actually take it through first reading and then go to the advisory board and then come back to you on second reading. I think there's still opportunity for the Waterfront Advisory Board to provide input and comments. Chair Sanchez: That's fine. Andl don't have a problem with it, but usually, it goes through the board and then it gets to us, right? Mr. Hernandez: No. Chair Sanchez: No? Robin Jones Jackson (Assistant City Attorney): Under the City Code, it can go to the Waterfront Advisory Board either beforehand or upon your recommendation. Chair Sanchez: All right. Ms. Jones Jackson: And this is a matter upon which the Trust and Parks and the City Administration have actually been working for a couple of years. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Okay. Read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the Assistant City Attorney Robin Jones Jackson. Ms. Jones Jackson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 FR.2 08-00531 City Manager's Office Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 4/0. Chair Sanchez: All right. FR.1 has been approved on first reading, 4/0. ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 38 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION," BY AMENDING SECTION 38-66, TO ESTABLISH EXCEPTIONS FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SIGNS WITHIN PARK LIMITS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00531 Summary Form.pdf 08-00531 Legislation V2.pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: We go to FR.2. FR.2 is also on first reading. This is a settlement -- CBS settlement. Pieter Bockweg (Assistant to Senior Director): Commissioners, Pieter Bockweg, Building, Planning and Zoning. This is an amendment to Chapter 38, entitled "Parks and Recreation," to establish exceptions for the placement of signs within City parks. Chair Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Gonzalez. Before we open this ordinance up for discussion, it requires a public hearing on first reading. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing no one, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. Discussion on the item. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chair. Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir. You're recognized for the record. Commissioner Sarnoff. As this ordinance is written, it allows -- it does not require Commission approval, and while we all trust this City Manager, I don't know about the next one or the one after him or the one after him. I know for myself in my parks, I would want one of you to make a decision as to whether you're going to be placing a billboard Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm on the understanding that this would require Commission approval. Commissioner Sarnoff. That is not the way it's written. Chair Sanchez: All right. Let's get that cleared. Is -- does this require -- once this is approved - City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Chair Sanchez: -- this is it? It goes to the City Manager; it's a done deal? Commissioner Gonzalez: No. I don't think so. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): The way it is written -- Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir. Mr. Hernandez: -- I would have the discretion that once we have a proposal, I could check, for example, with the district Commissioner, and upon his concurrence, I could go ahead and approve the license. I concur with what Commissioner Gonzalez and, I think, Commissioner Sarnoff are saying that, in my opinion, it should be something that I should bring back -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Hernandez: -- to the City Commission for your approval. Commissioner Regalado: So as a -- Chair Sanchez: Commissioner Sarnoff, would you like to amend it? Commissioner Regalado: -- as the maker, I would amend the ordinance requiring City Commission approval and a recommendation of the Parks Committee [sic]. Mr. Bockweg: Advisory Board. Commissioner Regalado: Parks Advisory Board. Commissioner Gonzalez: As a matter of fact -- I don't know how you're going to include it in the language, but the mechanism should be that once the Manager meets with the company -- Commissioner Regalado: It will go to the Parks -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- and they look at the location -- Commissioner Regalado: -- Advisory Board for a recommendation -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- it should -- Commissioner Regalado: -- and then for a final approval -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- be consulted with the Commission, the location, and then the Commission gives the approval -- Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- yes or no. Commissioner Regalado: Right. That's the change of language. Chair Sanchez: All right. But wait a minute, wait a minute. Let's get this straight. Your City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 amendment is, one, that it goes through the Parks Advisory Board; that's one. Commissioner Regalado: Come back to the recommendation -- Chair Sanchez: And then it comes with the recommendation to the City Commission for -- Commissioner Regalado: And the City Commission has to approve it. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Chair Sanchez: So you made the motion, and you're okay with that. You second it; are you okay with that? Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Chair Sanchez: All right. So it's been amended. All right. It's an ordinance on first reading. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing no one, hearing no one, the public hearing is closed; coming back. We've discussed the item; we've amended it. It's an ordinance on first reading. Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call, as amended. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chair Sanchez: Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, as modified, 4/0. City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 RESOLUTIONS RE.1 08-00524 RESOLUTION Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Attorney DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY TO AND ON BEHALF OF MANUEL GARCIA, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY CHAPTER 440, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE TOTAL SUM OF $195,000, IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DATES OF ACCIDENT ALLEGED AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, UPON EXECUTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI AND ITS PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES, FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 05002.301001.524000.0000.00000. 08-00524 Legislation.pdf 08-00524 Cover Memo.pdf 08-00524 Memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: All right. We're going to now -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman -- Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- would you --? We have -- you know, in an effort to clean up the agenda, RE.1, the gentleman involving this item is here in the chamber, and he's going to be asking for a continuance of his -- Chair Sanchez: RE.1? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. Could we call him to the podium so he does -- ask for the continue? Chair Sanchez: That's RE.1? Commissioner Gonzalez: RE.1, right. Mr. Manuel Garcia. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Manuel Garcia. Commissioner Gonzalez: Manuel is a resident of my district, and -- Chair Sanchez: And he's asking for the item to be continued? Manuel Garcia: Yes, sir. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Continued -- Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Por favor, su nombre. Mr. Garcia: Or continue or defer that contract that I signed it under malicious -- Chair Sanchez: Okay. So could you state your name and address for the record. Mr. Garcia: Yes. My name is Manuel Garcia, and my address is 1267 Northwest 24 Street, Miami 33142. Chair Sanchez: All right. Need a motion to continue -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Motion -- Chair Sanchez: -- RE.1. Chair Spence -Jones: Second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- to continue. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Vice Chair Spence -Jones. No discussion on the item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. The item has been continued. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. RE.2 08-00537 RESOLUTION Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Attorney EXPENDITURE OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, IN AN AMOUNT APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THE ENGAGEMENT OF JORDI GUSO, ESQUIRE AND THE LAW FIRM OF BERGER SINGERMAN, AS OUTSIDE COUNSEL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPRESENTING THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS FILED BY SKYLIFT, LLC; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NO. 00001.980000.531010.0000.00000; REQUIRING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON A QUARTERLY BASIS THE AMOUNT OF FEES AND COSTS INCURRED TO DATE. 08-00537 Legislation.pdf 08-00537 Cover Memo.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff and Sanchez Absent: 2 - Commissioner Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0292 Chair Sanchez: Okay. We go to RE.1. RE.1 was continued. I'm sorry. City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): RE.2. Commissioner Sarnoff. (INAUDIBLE) came in himself. Chair Sanchez: Yeah. He came in himself. Let's go to the RE.2. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. Chairman, RE.2 is a resolution whereby I'm asking authorization to spend funds for the purpose of hiring outside counsel. This would be bankruptcy counsel to represent the Bayfront Park Management Trust. At this time, the concessionaire who was operating the sky lift at the Bayfront Park Management Trust has filed for bankruptcy, and in order for us to be able to terminate the concession agreement and regain possession, we would be -- we would have to convince the bankruptcy court to lift the stay, and we are hiring this attorney to provide that expertise to the Trust. Chair Sanchez: All right. Tim, you want to put something on the record before we take a motion? Tim Schmand: Sky Lift has filed for Chapter 11. Chapter 11 implies a reorganization. They haven't gotten back to us with any reorganization information yet, so I think the hiring of counsel is a great move. Chair Sanchez: All right. Is there a motion? Commissioner Sarnoff. I'll make the motion. Do we have three people? I guess Commissioner Gonzalez is here. Chair Sanchez: Need a second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. Second. Chair Sanchez: Okay. There's a motion and a second. Discussion. You're recognized. Commissioner Sarnoff. Tim -- Mr. Schmand, I'm sorry, how much have you taken in from this particular operator? Mr. Schmand: The exact amount is $262, 573.03. Commissioner Sarnoff. And you also have a deposit and you also have a letter of credit; is that correct? Mr. Schmand: Correct. Commissioner Sarnoff. So you have another -- how much more money do you have available -- how much other money do you have as possible security? Mr. Schmand: The -- let's see, the total security was $67, 500; that's the security deposit. We still have that in its entirety. And then there was an instrument of $270, 000, from which we have taken 103,678.03, which leaves us with 237, 821.97. Commissioner Sarnoff. And this motion is for the City, out of its general obligations, to pay for the attorney for the Trust? Mr. Schmand: Yes. City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. And the Trust cannot hire its own counsel? Mr. Schmand: The Trust -- the Code for the City says that the legal services would be provided by the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Sarnoff. Would the City be reimbursed by the Trust? Mr. Schmand: It hasn't happened in the past, but it could be. Chair Sanchez: Not a problem. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Chair Sanchez: All right. There is a motion and a second. The item has been discussed. It is a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. RE.2 has been approved, 3/0. RE.3 08-00520 RESOLUTION Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Capital ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE TERMS OF, AND AUTHORIZING THE Improvements CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, Program IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THE MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY, THE MIAMI ARTS MUSEUM OF DADE COUNTY ASSOCIATION, INC., THE MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, INC, AND THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA, INC., FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MUSEUM PARK PROJECT IN BICENTENNIAL PARK. 08-0520 Legislation.pdf 08-0520 Exhibit 1.pdf 08-0520 Exhibit 2.pdf 08-0520 Exhibit 3.pdf 08-0520 Exhibit 4.pdf 08-0520 Exhibit 5.pdf 08-0520 Exhibit 6.pdf 08-0520 Exhi bit 7. pdf 08-0520 Summary Form.pdf 08-00520-Submittal-Steve Hagen.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado R-08-0290 Chair Sanchez: Let's take up RE.3. RE.3. All right, RE.3 is also a resolution; no public input; no public hearing. It is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the museums. All right, do you want to --? Mr. City Manager -- City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Hernstadt will do the item. However, I wanted to do, you know, as part of my introduction, that this is a non -binding agreement between the City, the County, Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority, Miami Arts Museum, Museum of Science, and the Historic Association of Southern Florida. And -- Chair Sanchez: There is no public hearing. Mr. Hernandez: -- I wanted to take you -- I want -- Steve Hagan: Excuse me, Mr. -- Chair Sanchez: There is no public hearing. It's a resolution. Mr. Hagan: As a point of order. Under the citizens' bill of rights -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Sir? Chair -- Mr. Hagan: (INAUDIBLE). Ms. Thompson: -- I don't have a name for the record. Mr. Hagan: (INAUDIBLE). Vice Chair Spence -Jones: You got to put your name on the record, Steve. Chair Sanchez: But it's -- Mr. Hagan: Oh, Steve Hagan, 727 (INAUDIBLE). Chair Sanchez: Madam Attorney, there is no public hearing on this item, correct? Mr. Hagan: (COMMENTS OFF THE RECORD). Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. City Manager, you're recognized for the record. Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners -- Chair Sanchez: Sorry for the interruption. Mr. Hernandez: -- this is an item that it's an interlocal between the City, the County, the Museums, and MSEA (Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority) in order to lease the two 4-acre parcels that are going to be used for both museums. It only talks about the two 4-acre parcels, not the park itself and it's something that was heard by MSEA and approved last week. It was also approved by the County and the boards of the respective museums. I want to also put on the record that back in June of '07, when we were discussing the project grant for the Museum of Art, that there were some conditions placed at that time by Commissioner Sarnoff, Spence -Jones, and yourself, Commissioner Sanchez, and that those conditions will be discussed and negotiated as part of the future definitive agreements that will be coming before you in the future. Chair Sanchez: Just want to put on the record, there'll be plenty of public participation when we get to the lease agreement, the management agreement, and the construction agreement. Based on the procedure here today, this is a resolution; it'll -- there'll be a motion and a second, which I'll entertain now; it'll be open for discussion, and then we'll vote on this item. So on RE.3, do I have a motion to approve? City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Sarnoff. Is there a second? Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Gonzalez. The item is under discussion. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir. You're recognized for the record. Commissioner Sarnoff. I think it's imperative, as the City Manager suggested, that the Miami Museum ofArt andl think it should also be imperative that science take heed of the caution that we've placed on them in June 14, 2007 so that they demonstrate their fiscal ability and reliability in their management and overseeing of their respective museum sites, andl want to make sure that the City Manager, who's put on the record to his credit, that he will maintain the June 14, 2007 criteria, which I have a copy of if he'd like to read, as well as the discussions put on there. I know Commissioner Spence -Jones had a number of them, and that we continue to harbor those agreements and incorporate them in the respective either management agreement or the lease itself. So with that, you know, I am -- I would like to urge my colleagues to pass this resolution as I think it's time that we cite these museums on the park with fiscal responsibility. Chair Sanchez: All right. Vice Chair Spence -Jones, you're recognized for the record. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only two issues thatl have regarding this overall item, and it was explained by the City Attorney and by the City Manager regarding the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), that we will have the opportunity to include the two issues in the overall agreement. And my biggest concern on June 14 regardingMlttvl (Miami Museum ofArt) and regarding these agreements, one was this Community Benefits Agreement. I thought that it was imperative that that would happen, andl don't know where we are from the standpoint -- and I'm assuming Roger's going to respond to it or somebody's going to respond to the issue of the Community Benefits Agreement and the status of that happening, is that being put in place? Because what I don't want to have happen -- it always seems as though things are rushed because we got to get it done at a certain period of time, and then all of a sudden, we're trying to throw everything in to make it happen, and then we're forced up here to swallow it. Now, I was -- it was communicated to me that, okay, Commissioner Spence -Jones, this is the MOU; we need to pass this particular item, but when the overall agreement comes, then we can put the Community Benefits Agreement and the oversight board in place. I don't want this -- the agreement to come in front of us and we say, oh, we [sic] in the process of doing it, and it has not happened yet. I would like to get an update on the status of those two issues first before I go anywhere else, so can you give me that -- the update on the Community Benefits Agreement and what you guys have accomplished since then, since June 14? Mr. Hernstadt: Commissioner, Roger Hernstadt, assistant city manager. We have -- we are -- went over all the conditions from the June meeting with the respective museums, and we -- they are aware, and they've expressed to me their willingness to work together to bring forth the successful project that everyone involved can support and deal with the issues that the elected officials from the City of Miami feel are very important for the City. So we have begun to talk. We're doing the process of setting up regular meetings to work -- negotiate all the issues so that we can, a, inform the Commission of the terms that we are in agreement of inform the elected officials of the terms that we're not in agreement on and what the perhaps middle ground are and -- before bringing an agreement to the City Commission and MSEA for approval. And your two points are forefront in our minds with respect to that. City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. With all due respect, Roger, I'm hearing what you're saying, but can I get an update as to where we are with the Community Benefits Agreement and the oversight board? Has there been any meetings regarding, you know -- I mean, I would like to appoint somebody on this community oversight board that think should sit on the board if we're talking about this major development that's going to be happening in a city park. I would want - - we would -- we should be talking to these individuals now before the agreement comes from the County, and then we have to swallow whatever pill is given to us. So where are we with this oversight board because I would like to at least put two people on whatever this oversight board is? And the other issue for me is the Community Benefits Agreement. In order to create a Community Benefits Agreement that's going to go into the overall agreement that we're going to have with MAM, we need to have the community's input on what those things are, so -- and that takes time. So any update on that? Terry Riley: May I --? My name is Terry Riley, director of the Miami Art Museum. I just -- everything that Roger said is, of course, correct, but would like to -- Commissioners to at least know what the museums have been doing in anticipation of entering into more formal talks. One of the requirements was $40 million in pledges, $8 million in cash. We have exceeded both of those. In fact, I'm very happy to say that the $10 million Knight Foundation grant we got, plus -- andl'm able to announce this for the first time today -- a $5 million grant we receivedyesterday from a major corporation put us well over that requirement. As such, if we had the plans ready today, we could break ground and finish the project. We have enough money between the County funds and the private funding to do that. The other requirements, we're passed the MOU, which we hopefully will do today; take a proactive role in funding the park. I'd like the Commissioners to know that we worked with the City and other parties to approach the Knight Foundation for funding for the bay walk portion of the park. We've also had a discussion with a private individual, who's capable of making $8 million -- eight figure gift to support the development and maintenance of the park. We've had the public hearings, as you requested. We have made the parking available for the community in the design. We expect to meet the requirement for the number of spaces pending ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), security, and visitor -safety requirements. And finally, we executed a grant agreement with the County which requires that we not seek reimbursement for any soft costs over 17 percent. So I'm sorry we haven't been able to get back to you and report on all these agreements, but we have been doing these. A draft benefits agreement was submitted to the City Clerk after the June meeting. We've updated that, and Michelle Spence -Jones, I'm sorry, we did submit it to your office, to your assistant. And we were able to increase our proposed programs and benefits to the community because we've been bolstered by the Knight -- $10 million Knight Foundation gift, so we've been very diligent and we've taken your issues very, very seriously. We've not been back to report to you, but we want you to know that both Commissioner Sarnoffs and Commissioner Spence -Jones' issues have been in the forefront of our mind. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Mr. Riley -- Mr. Riley: Yes. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- first of all, let me commend you on raising the money and meeting the requirements that was asked of the Commission and exceeding that because that was one of the biggest issues. Let's be very clear. For me -- and again, it's -- we still haven't gotten a direct response on the Community Benefits Agreement and the oversight board that we talked about regarding the community being involved with what's happening in the overall park. As far as the draft agreement or the benefits agreement that you said that was submitted to our office -- I'm assuming you had submitted it to all the Commissioners' office. For me, it's not really about what I think; it's about making sure that the input comes in from the community regarding what they feel needs to happen in a Community Benefits Agreement. So no matter what the board or your team decides to put together regarding a benefits agreement to submit to us, it really doesn't hold as much weight unless the community has real involvement or participation, and to City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 me it should be kind of the oversight board at least being put in place to then give comments on what the Community Benefits Agreement should include. It shouldn't be that this is the benefits that we're going to give you, community, without your input; and then from that point, we make a decision on it. It needs to be vice versa. Mr. Riley: We'd be happy to participate -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: So my question is on the oversight board, have you pulled together an oversight board or started the motion of that? Mr. Riley: I don't think the museums are empowered to pull that board together. I would defer to Roger. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Roger, please respond to that. Mr. Hernstadt: Commissioner, in all honesty, we haven't started the oversight board process, but as soon as -- there is a provision for a committee in the MOU, and we will begin working on that immediately and make sure that the issues that you've raised are in the forefront, as I said earlier. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. I just -- thank you, Roger. What I wanted to just say in closing, because I know how this whole thing, you know, unfolds most of the time. Again, we're forced to rush and make decisions because we have these deadlines for whatever reasons that are placed on us. I don't want to be placed in that position. IfI support the MOU, I want to support it with the understanding today that before that agreement comes back in front of the City Commission, there would have been at least an oversight board meeting prior to us agreeing or supporting or denying, whatever the case may be, that meeting. That needs to take place -- that oversight -- andl think that we all should have someone appointed to sit on that oversight board because a park is not just for one particular community; it's for the whole entire city. Andl think that it's important to consider a lot of the issues that the community have, making sure that there's small business participation, making sure that there's local arts -based organizations involved. I personally am going to say this and put it on the record. I know that at least from the study that we've been doing with parks regarding our Little Haiti cultural complex, our -- we've actually brought in someone to actually assess what needs to happen in the cultural complex, and we've looked at several arts -based organizations in Miami, and the consultants said they reached out to MAM several times with any fol -- without any follow-through or any input, one way or the other, just to get information. So I know if I'm having a difficult time with just sitting down to have a basic interview about how cultural arts organizations work so that we don't make a mistake with Little Haiti cultural complex, I can only imagine what's going to happen ifI have to rely on the oversight board being put in place before the agreement or the Community Benefits Agreement being in place. I just -- my feeling is, you know, it's very hard for me to trust when people say they're going to do things and they don't deliver. So while I may vote in support on it today, you need to be very clear that when it comes to the next time, as far as the agreement is concerned, if this board isn't [sic] come together or this benefit agreements has not had the input of the community, Spence -Jones answer or support on this issue is not going to be here. Mr. Riley: Commissioner, the answer to your points are yes, yes, yes, and to the extent that the folks in Little Haiti are having an issue getting in touch with the right people, we'll be more than happy to intervene and make sure that that happens. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: No problem. That's it. That's all have. Chair Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In the past days and weeks, every time that we have read something or listened about the museums andMSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority) involvement and partnership with the museum and the City, we hear that this is model to the Children's Museum in Watson Island and in a way, those who say that are half right because the Children's Museum was in the model to have something built that has been a success, especially for the residents of the City ofMiami, but the problem that keep having with this agreement in terms ofMSEA and the City and the County is that it's not like the Children'sMuseum. Because I do have historical memory, andl do remember that this Commission, before any MOU, before any talk, before anything was approved, written or verbally, before anything was vote in this Commission, this Commission placed very strict conditions on the museum, which has resulted in a tremendous benefit for the people ofMiami. And the first condition was that Miami residents pay half the price; whatever the price is, Miami residents pay half the price. That is what the Children's Museum has done throughout this year, and mind you, it has worked because more than 65 percent of the people that attend the museums are City ofMiami residents. Now I keep asking whether or not we could place the same condition to start, andl keep getting the same answer, we cannot because it's funded by GOB (General Obligation Bond) bonds and then the residents of the County will need to have the same benefit. But my point is that the citizens of the City ofMiami, the residents of the City ofMiami are paying three times for these museums, while the rest of the County is paying one time. The residents of the City ofMiami are giving the land free. The residents of the City of Miami are paying ad valorem tax for the municipal bonds that are being given in terms of several millions of dollars to the museums, and the residents of the City ofMiami are paying ad valorem tax on the County GOB bonds. So three times; we're giving the land -- the residents of the City ofMiami because we don't own the land, the residents do. We're giving the land, we're paying ad valorem tax for the municipal bonds that were allocated to the museum. We are paying ad valorem tax for the GOB County bond issue, and yet, we don't get a single benefit? To me, that's wrong. And you can do whatever you want. You can say whatever you want to say; that MOU has to be vague and start -- but I'll tell you something. When the MOU about the baseball stadium was approved, it was approved without any conditions, precise conditions. After that was approved, everyone has already officially proclaimed that we have a baseball stadium, and yet, we haven't even been able to resolve an issue that was voted 5/0 by this Commission, which is should the Miami police and the fire be the leading agencies in the baseball park. And yet, we all say, officially, that we have a stadium. So my fear is that it's going to be the same. Residents ofMiami will have no benefit, although we pay three times, and the issues that you all placed officially as a resolution, as a mandate to the Manager, are not included in the MOU. And l just think it's unfair to the people ofMiami, andl still don't understand why the residents of Miami who are given the most expensive land south of Manhattan -- because there is no other land in downtown waterfront -- and paying bonds, municipal bonds, and paying County bonds cannot have a break in those museum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: You're welcome. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: No. No comments. Chair Sanchez: I have no discussion on the item. This is just an MOU. It's a step forward. The final deal will come back to us, and we'll address all those concerns when it comes back to us. So no further discussion on RE.3, which was a resolution. There was a first and a second. We've discussed the item. No further discussion. All in favor, say "aye." Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Aye. Commissioner Sarnoff. Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez: Aye. City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Chair Sanchez: 4/1, Madam Clerk. City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 PART B Chair Sanchez: All right, we'll go to PZ.16. Before we go to PZ (Planning & Zoning), Madam Attorney, you want to read the procedures of PZ. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The Planning & Zoning items shall proceed as follows: Before the Planning and Zoning agenda is heard, all those who wish to speak will be sworn in by the City Clerk. Staff will briefly describe the request, whether it's an appeal, a special exception, vacation, a text amendment, a zoning change, a land -use change, or a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), and make its recommendation. The appellant or the petitioner will then present the request. The appellee, if applicable, will present its position. Members of the public will be permitted to speak on certain petitions. Appellant or petitioner will be permitted to make final comments. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: At this time, Madam Clerk, we'd like to, I guess, officially swear in those that -- we're going to take up PZ.16, so at -- Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- this point, would you like to swear those in? Ms. Thompson: If any and all individuals that will be speaking on or testifying on any and all PZ items, will you please stand so we administer your oath? Any PZ item that you're speaking on, you need to go ahead and stand. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Madam Clerk. [Later..] Chair Sanchez: All right. The City ofMiami Commission meeting is being reconvened. We go back to PZ (Planning & Zoning). Before we go to the PZ, the next item on the agenda is going to be PZ.1. Let me read this into the record. Any person who acts as a lobbyist pursuant to the City ofMiami ordinance must register with the City Clerk. We ask that all those that are testing in front of this Commission, please come up, state your name and address for the record; and all those that'll be testing on PZ items, please stand up and be sworn in. So all those that will be testifying or giving testimony on any PZ item, we kindly ask you to stand up, raise your right hand, and be sworn in. Ms. Thompson: IfI might add, at the Chair's okay, Chair we need to make sure individuals understand that they must also sign a speaker sheet. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Ms. Thompson: They must also -- they may be sworn in, but they need to sign a speaker sheet, be they lobbyist or whomever, so that we have a complete record of the individuals speaking before the Commission. Thank you, Chair. At -- Note for the Record: Chair Sanchez translated the City Clerk's comments in Spanish. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. [Later...] Chair Sanchez: All right. Let's go back to PZ.5. Commissioner Gonzalez: PZ.5, right? Chair Sanchez: Let's bring up PZ.5. Ms. Thompson: Chair, ifI might. I'm not sure that everyone that's here has been sworn in -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: -- because we did take a break. Chair Sanchez: Once again, I've been reminded by the Clerk that if you're here to testify in front of any of the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, you must register to address this Commission, fill out a form, and also, we need to swear you in. So if you have not been sworn in, at this time I would respectfully ask that you stand up and raise your right hand and be sworn in. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Commissioner Regalado: Chairman, can I -- Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: -- ask you, did we already took [sic] PZ.3? Chair Sanchez: No. We could -- Ms. Thompson: No. Chair Sanchez: -- do PZ.3 after this. Commissioner Regalado: Okay. PZ.1 03-0415 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13, AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE KUBIK AT MORNINGSIDE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5600-5780 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE PROPOSED AS TWO 14-STORY BUILDINGS WITH TWO DESIGN OPTIONS WITH THE "ALTERNATIVE A" OPTION COMPRISED OF 293 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 41,745 SQUARE FEET OF City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 422 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; OR THE "ALTERNATIVE B" OPTION WHICH IS COMPRISED OF 293 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 33,046 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIURESTAURANT SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 362 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 03-0415 MUSP Analysis.PDF 03-0415 Zoning Map.pdf 03-0415 Aerial Map.pdf 03-0415 PAB Resos.PDF 03-0415 Letters of Intent and MUSP Application.PDF 03-0415 Special Exception Fact Sheet.pdf 03-0415 Sp Exception Analysis.PDF 03-0415 ZB Reso.PDF 03-0415 Sp Exception Application & Supp Docs.PDF 03-0415 Plans.PDF 03-0415 June 10, 2004 CC Resolution.pdf 03-0415 Eleventh Circuit Court Decision.pdf 03-0415 Third District Court of Appeal Decision.pdf 03-0415 CC R-06-0344.pdf 03-0415 CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 03-0415 Exhibit A (Alternative A).pdf 03-0415 ExhibitA (Alternative B).pdf 03-0415 Exhibit B (Alternative A).pdf 03-0415 Exhibit B (Alternative B).pdf LOCATION: Approximately 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire, on behalf of Kubik, LLC; Biscayne Premier Investments, Inc and Mark's Classics Corp FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 17, 2003 by a vote of 4-2. Recommended approval with conditions* of the substantial modification to City Commission on April 7, 2004 by a vote of 5-4. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval of special exceptions to City Commission on December 15, 2004 by a vote of 9-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Kubik on Morningside project. NOTE(S): On March 22, 2006, the Circuit Court remanded this item to the City Commission for further proceedings. Once again, on February 22, 2008, the Circuit Court remanded this item to the City Commission for further proceedings. City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS FAILED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado Noes: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones Motion by Chair Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED FAILED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Sanchez Noes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones Note for the Record: The item was continued to the City Commission meeting currently scheduled for June 26, 2008 as the first item on the Planning & Zoning agenda. Chair Sanchez: Ladies and gentlemen, this is afresh hearing. All right, PZ.1. Madam Attorney, how much time are you going to need? Lucia Dougherty: I would say our whole presentation will be a half an hour. Chair Sanchez: I'm sorry? Ms. Dougherty: A half an hour. Chair Sanchez: A half an hour. We'll afford the other side the same time, and then, when we open it up to the public hearing, everyone speaking on this item, you will have two minutes. The attorneys will have plenty of time to present their arguments, their facts, but the public speakers will only have two minutes. Thank you. Madam Applicant, you're recognized for the record. This is on PZ.1, Kubik atMorningside. Ms. Dougherty: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. Lucia Dougherty and Iris Escarra, here on behalf of the owners and the applicant; and joining me this morning is Camilo Alvarado and Enrique Alvarado, his father, as well as Jose Camilo Olega (phonetic), who purchased the subject property in 2002 and 2003 and actually filed the Major Use Special Permit, for which you are now reviewing, in 2003. Also joining me this morning is their partner, Paul Murphy, who is a builder, and actually pulled the building permit for this project. This is the seventh time we've been before the City Commission, and we've had over 15 public hearings; and when this was approved, we had over 50 neighborhood meetings, and I'm going to give you a list of the neighborhood meetings that we had. We also had support from virtually every community association at the time. Bob Flanders, who was the president of the Upper Eastside Council, supported the project; David Treese supported the project, Alex Rodriguez supported the project, and Shane Graber supported the project, and Shane was the president at that time, and he has written us a subsequent letter that we have today. So there was overwhelming support at the time, and we have, subsequent to that time, received a award from the AIA (American Institute of Architects) as the best loft project in Florida, andl think we have a copy of that award here with us. The property is zoned 0 and C-1 with an SD-9 overlay. We are not City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 requesting any comp plan amendment. We are not requesting any rezoning. We are not requesting any variances. We're not requesting any special exceptions. This is essentially an as -of -right project. Any project that has over 200 units requires a Major Use Special Permit. That's the only reason we're here. Since the last time that we were here before you though, which was June 10, 2004, we believed -- andl think Mr. Sastre believed and the City Attorney believed at that time -- that the review that you would be giving would be on the record. After that time, the court has basically said that we misunderstood their order and that everybody gets a new shot at it, so this is not on the record. This is a denovo hearing, and we are presenting as if it was new in 2004. But since that time and since their last hearing in 2004, we have also demolished all of the substandard buildings on the property, which were not only an eyesore, but a source of crime in the neighborhood; and we have been applauded by many of the neighbors for doing so. We have also pulled a full building permit for the property and the project, and that full building permit cost us about $2 million in impact fees and building permit fees. The project is located on US 1 -- on the west side of US 1, which is a highway that goes all the way from Maine to Key West. This is a substantial highway that buffers our property from any single-family neighborhoods, and in fact, it is an island and there are no single-family neighborhoods adjoining this property. In fact, on the north side, where one of the appellants is, is actually zoned R-3, which is allowed 50 foot [sic] in height. It's zoned 0 on the Biscayne Boulevard side, R-3 just west of that, and an SD-9 overlay, and an SD-12 overlay allowing for commercial parking. So the property directly to the north of us allows for commercial parking to service any of the commercial properties and it also allows us to -- allows a 50 foot R-3 building, so there are no single-family houses next to the property. We are surrounded by three streets. We are an island unto ourselves. There are 369 units allowed; we have proposed 300, meaning a 20 percent reduction in what we could have asked for. There's 378,000 square feet of FAR (floor area ratio) allowed; we've proposed 350. You're allowed a 45 percent total bonus. We have asked for less than 20 percent. And if you may recall, the reason we were asking for the bonus is because we wanted to open the retail to the street. In other words, if we closed our retail on the ground floor, we would need no bonuses, but of course, that's not the design criteria that the City wants and that's not what we want. We want a pedestrian friendly retail area, so the bonuses that we requested simply went so that we could open the retail to the street. We've designed this project not to be seen -- so that the garage would not be seen from the -- anywhere. It is totally lined on all sides. We've also put all of our ingress and egress on 4th Court as opposed to 58th Street, which is abutting the R-3. We have a 35-foot height limitation or a height requirement on the town houses that face the R-3 site and again, on that R-3 site you could have a commercial parking lot. Height seems to be the issue in the neighborhood for some neighbors, and the height we propose is 151 feet. The current Code currently, after the property was down zoned twice in terms of height, allows for 120 feet, so we are essentially 30 feet taller than what is permitted today. Miami 21, which has been, you know, proposed by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, a renowned architect have been studying this area, they're proposing a T6-8, which would allow 156feet, five feet taller than what we're proposing. That's what Miami 21 has said from the very beginning. Camilo, who has been the owner and a designer -- design professional on this project from the very beginning and also a partner, is going to show you the project in its totality from the very beginning. He is also a former member of the Historic Preservation Board of the City ofMiami and a preservationist. Then I will follow with that showing you how we comply with 1305, which is your current criteria. Then we will have a urban planner and architect, Dean Lewis, who is also a neighbor in Morningside, do his analysis as to why we comply with 1305. We would like to incorporate all of the -- and introduce all of the previous evidence at all hearings, the Zoning Code, the comp plan, site plans, applications, those documents which are held by the Clerk as previous submittals, all the support letters, the 1305 criteria and the building permit plans and the building permit itself. We'd like to now turn this over to Camilo, who will walk you through the project. Camilo Alvarado: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Camilo Alvarado. It's been five years that we started with this project, and never thought that would be here explaining it again once more to you, but we have held more than 50 meetings with the community, neighbors, City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 and City staff and we don't find appropriate -- we don't find fair that we still have opposition. Nevertheless, I think it's the right project, the project that we're going to present today, that is appropriate for the location and for the rebirth of Biscayne Boulevard; and I'm still as enthusiastic as the first day that I started the project in 202 [sic]. That means six years ago. I'm going to walk you through the process of where Kubik is located. Iris Escarra: Excuse me a second. It's not coming up on the TV (Television), but we also have a hardcopy to distribute. Chair Sanchez: Hold on. Let's get our IT (Information Technology) guy. Here he is. They're quick. All right. We're having problems? We are? All right. We'll just go with the manual handout presentation. Mr. Alvarado: Okay. So the project that we're going to show you, I think, is just as appropriate as we did in 204 [sic] and the project that was approved. The first thing we need to do doing an intervention in such a special location as where Kubik is located is to understand that we are close to US 1, which borders our property, to architectural landmarks and to FEC (Florida East Coast) corridor. If you look at this, the page of the Upper Eastside, which shows the drawing of -- or the photograph of the Upper Eastside, you'll find that the yellow line is US 1 that goes from Maine to Key West; the red line that goes -- that is the FEC Corridor, and the Upper Eastside, which is Belle Meade, Belle Point, Morningside, Palm Grove, et cetera. So this is a very unique location where we're -- our project is located. And the US 1, with its understanding how the process goes from downtown to the 79th Street, has a lot of variety of architecture. The first masterpiece, I would say, that is helped to revitalize downtown is the Performing Art [sic] Center. If you go up north, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) afterwards find the Bacardi building. On 36 Street, we find the Design District, and then on 55th Street, we find the 55th Street Station, and that's where we are located. The yellow circle that you find there, this is an analysis done by HOK that shows how important our location is and how different is to other areas in the boulevard. The HOK study of urban and architectural guidelines of Upper Eastside found that this note or (UNINTELLIGIBLE) had to have an intense use of pedestrian activity and high density, which is exactly where the 55th Street Station is, the Pizza Andiamo is, which is a historic preservation building and where Kubik is located. Our property is surrounded by streets. We are an island. We are a triangle. We are located at the west side of the boulevard. Between us and Morningside, there is the US 1. It's a main highway. And between US 1 and Morningside, there is a buffer of a C-1. At the north side, we're abutting 58th Street, and 58th Street at the other side, we have an R-3 that meets 50 feet. On the east side, we have 4th Court and the station; and at the cross, we have the FEC Corridor. So we don't abut any residential area. We're not part or abutting any single-family homes. We are west of the Biscayne, and we have a buffer of streets that are US 1, R-3 on 58th and 4th Court. Therefore, we are an island, and we should be treated accordingly. We are not part or abutting any single-family homes, as I repeat. Our project is surrounded by a fast highway and -- or main street, which creates a real buffer between the residential areas. There are five different options that I'm going to show you that are printed. It's the process that we made with the help of the community, with the help of Miami City staff with the help of neighbors, and with developers. Five different options with complete set of drawings, economical and architectural feasibility, and we choose one project that was the correct one. The original project that we presented in 203 [sic] to the Commission had two floors -- or was two floors higher. The first option that we presented was a building that had differentiation in the middle that had a plaza and a division that create in two structures of roughly 170 feet. The second option that we presented was one long, big building along Biscayne Boulevard and two floors -- with a reduction of two floors. We still left a cut in the middle to connect Biscayne with 4th Court, but it was still a long building, parallel to Biscayne. The third alternative was one long building, reduced by two floors in height; we eliminated the plaza in the middle, but we increase parking. Parking was something the neighbors wanted to increase, so in this option, we increase parking. The fourth option, which was the URB [sic] recommendation, was the original height of 170 feet, and increasing parking and the rhythm of City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 the two buildings, which was highly applauded by URB -- UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) andPAB (Planning Advisory Board). In this proposal, in number four, we still have the height of 170 feet, we still have an increase in parking spaces, and we still have the two buildings that create a rhythm in Biscayne Boulevard. The fifth option that was lastly presented and is the approved project that we have today with building permits and foundation permit, and is the project that we launched in 204 [sic], we started sales and we were ready to start building by summer of last year. We completed the requirements of the bank to start construction. This fifth proposal that we did and conveyed with all the neighbors and the associations, Bob Flanders, David Treese, Shane Graber, Mark Soyka, and all of the members and presidents or -- part of the boards of the association recommended that this project should be the one to select. In order to select this project, we had to buy more property, so in order to continue with the same project that we originally wanted to do, to reduce the height in good faith, working with our neighbors, we increased the size of the property by buying additional property. That cost us at that time roughly with drawings million and a half to two million. That's 203 [sic] or 204 [sic], four years ago. This proposal reduces the height by two floors. It creates the rhythm that the UDRB recommended and PAB recommended and that we find appropriate, the rhythm of two buildings; one pedestal that increases the number of parking spaces, and a beautiful urban plaza that wrapped around Andiamo. We had always thought that the Andiamo building was the starting point of this project. It is a modern structure, glass, and conveys a great amount of energy that we wanted to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the project. Therefore, our proposal in the next page -- could l just run very quickly through the other slides so we catch up when we -- so everybody knows where -- exactly where we are? The plan that I was showing you that shows in red line, the FEC Corridor, the yellow line that shows the US 1, US 1 being the main highway; the different landmarks around Biscayne from the Performing Arts Center to the 55th Street Station and the Design District, with the yellow circle as being the node or the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that identifies an area that has to have more activity and higher density where we are located, which is a pedestrian circulation of a three -minute walk. Our property, which shows in orange, that we are an island that we are 180 feet roughly from the FEC Corridor, and 160 feet away from the residential homes ofMorningside, with a buffer of C-1 and then US 1 in the middle; and at the north, 58th Street andR-3, a zoning classification. Conclusive, we are an island that should be treated accordingly. This picture shows how the concept of an island and a project is. On the right-hand side, you see Miami. Miami's -- US 1 in Miami, which is a highly traffic road, and on the left-hand side you see 4th Court. Basically, we're surrounded by streets. Kubik is a smart development that captures the energy of the place. It's a competent mixed use, which -- what encourages the HOK proposal, encourages quality of life, safety and mobility, safety being an issue, having retail and commercial spaces wrapping around the whole property. We were based in a future location as a traffic node or transport node. It enhances the pedestrian activity and public gathering. It brings safety to the neighborhood and promotes commercial activity, which today is a big issue in the Biscayne Boulevard corridor. Consolidates the neighborhood. It creates a catalyst in the redevelopment of the corridor and addresses -- this project addresses the needs of the community and its residents. These five different options that we are showing today were developed with the neighbors and the City Planning staff. I just walked you away from the first one, is the seven bi-level, which is roughly 170 feet. This was the original proposal. The second proposal was reducing it by two levels and having a long building along Biscayne Boulevard. The third alternative was reducing it by two levels and increasing the commercial and the parking spaces. That's why we have a compact garage. The URB [sic] recommendation, which was to continue with the 170 feet, 2 buildings, and increase the number of parking spaces, which was -- UDRB recommended that project -- and the fifth alternative, which I was telling you when we got interrupted, is the alternative that we had as an option by buying more land. The same project required us in 204 [sic] to buy more property. We bought more property only to act in good faith and work with the neighborhoods to reduce two floors. In this proposal, we reduce two floors. We, as well, bought more land and we incurred extra costs. We increase the number of parking spaces, and we continue with the proposal of the two buildings that was highly applauded by UDRB and PAB. In this sense, we created a rhythm in Biscayne Boulevard City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 through the commercial area, the residential area, and in the penthouse area, which barely can be seen from the street. The yellow area is the open area that the project has that enhances pedestrian activity; the orange is the commercial activity, which people can walk around the street and can access through the public spaces. And the bonus that we requested in 203 [sic] was the bonus in order to open up this commercial spaces to the street. The blue line or the blue element shows that we were proposing and we are proposing a town houses on 58. These town houses are roughly 35 feet, and that corresponds to our neighborhood in front, which is an R-3, which is 50 feet. Our current proposal is 151 foot in height and it has different setbacks. These different setbacks create a rhythm on Biscayne. The first setback is the setback of the residential -- the commercial area, sorry. The second setback is at the penthouse level, so the level that you would see from Biscayne is 130 feet. As a pedestrian, you would only see 130 feet. The 25 setback that we have extra is for the penthouses. This setback cannot be seen from the street. In 203 [sic] when we started the project and we submitted our current code was unlimited height, C-1 unlimited height. We could have proposed a 24 feet tall building, massive block without commercial, and parking aligning on the streets. We rather propose 151 foot with different setbacks and commercial wrapping the building -- the property, creating a pedestrian friendly environment. That means that we didn't maximize the height, and we didn't maximize the FAR either. But that time we did a shadow study. This shadow study that I'm presenting you was the worst case that is in December 22; the rest of the study you have it on the drawings that we applied; 9 a.m., 11 a.m., and 3 p.m., and 5 p.m. This is the worst condition. The other drawings are in the package. Just as an example, I want to show you, when I came here in 201 [sic] to Miami, my first project -- and this project has similarities to the one on Biscayne Boulevard. It's a project located in Coral Way and 14th Avenue. It abuts a main avenue, which is Coral Way and 14th. The building was proposing 17 floors and it was all commercial C-1, and at the back it had residential. What we did by that time in 201 [sic], we proposed the higher building or the tall structure in front of Coral Way main street with commercial at the plaza; and we propose a swimming pool and a garden at the back abutting the R-1. This was highly applauded by all our neighbors. Their property values increased, and we had a great successful project. This is the buffer zone that we created. And finally, the project that we have here that it has been approved by the Commissioners in many occasions and the project that we are proposing and that has the building permits and that has paid the impact fees and has commercial activity and has the two buildings that were suggested by UDRB and that worked -- that we worked in combination with our neighbors is the final image that we see, andl think this project -- I still think that this project is a crucial as it was in 203 [sic], and it will be the catalyst for the rebirth of commercial activity in the Biscayne Boulevard district. Applause. Michael Sastre: May I cross-examine the witness? I apologize. May I cross-examine the witness or --? Chair Sanchez: You want to cross-examine him as a speaker or do you want to wait till the end? Mr. Sastre: No. I'd like to cross-examine him now, just in continuity. Chair Sanchez: Okay. I just wanted to get -- I just wanted to establish an order. Mr. Sastre: Sure. Chair Sanchez: Go ahead. Mr. Sastre: Absolutely, and it'll be brief. Thank you. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chair. IfI may ask for the name of the speaker for the record. City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Yes. Sir -- counsel, could you state your name for the record. Mr. Sastre: Yes. Michael Sastre, on behalf of the objectors and some residents from Morningside. Yes. Mr. Alvarado, very briefly, some residents of Morningside -- well -- Chair Sanchez: Who do -- who are you representing, sir? Mr. Sastre: Specifically, I'm representing Cesar Hernandez Canton. I suppose one could also say I'm representing myself. I don't know how many other people you'd like me to list or indicate. Some of them are here to speak for themselves. I don't know if it'd be appropriate for me to say I'm per se -- Chair Sanchez: But just clearly put on the record who you're representing. Mr. Sastre: Sure. Cesar Hernandez Canton. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Okay. So one person and yourself? Mr. Sastre: No. Well, I think -- you know, I hate to be taking up time over what I think is really - Chair Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Sastre: -- a irrelevant -- Chair Sanchez: -- never mind. Mr. Sastre: -- issue, but I think, technically, from the papers that I filed today, I represent Elvis Cruz, William Hopper, Jack Wolfe, and Al (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but believe some of those individuals may also speak on their own and present some evidence in this case. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alvarado, would you agree with me that what we are here about today is the February 2004 plans and not any of these prior plans? Mr. Alvarado: I don't know the technical answer. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Well, I believe what's in front of the Commission now are the February 2004 plans. I believe that was part of the appellate decisions, but you're not aware of that? Ms. Dougherty: You're asking him basically a legal question, andl don't think that he -- Mr. Sastre: Well, I -- Ms. Dougherty: He is here on behalf of the plans that were -- building permit set of drawings were permitted. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Well, let me put it this way. Are you aware, Mr. Alvarado, that all of your prior plans, prior to February 2004, which I believe are the only ones relevant here today, were rejected outright for denial by the PAB and the Planning & Zoning Board? Were you aware of that? Mr. Alvarado: I don't know. City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: Okay. Would you agree with me that the history of prior meetings and prior plans, as they occurred or didn't occur prior to February of 2004, is irrelevant entirely to what we're here about today? Mr. Alvarado: Can you repeat the question? Mr. Sastre: Sure. I'm trying to find out -- there were all these meetings alluded to and prior hearings, and my question to you is do you understand that that's all irrelevant to what we're here today; that we're here today about the February 2004 plans? Mr. Alvarado: What I did is I explained the process of the project that we have today, the project that was approved in the last Commission, and the project that has had a process of working with the community, the neighbors, and a process -- a project that has been working as - - we had worked with the City staff of Miami, so I just walked away -- we walked through clearly the five years of the history of the project. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Are you aware of any Comprehensive Planning and zoning analysis since April 2004 corrected -- conducted under the correct design review criteria under 1305? Mr. Alvarado: If I'm aware -- Can you repeat the question, please? Mr. Sastre: Sure. I'm aware of -- I'm asking if you're aware of any Planning & Zoning comprehensive analysis performed by the City Planning Department under the correct design review criteria following April 2004? Mr. Alvarado: Can we ask that to the City, please? Mr. Sastre: Well, I'm asking for your knowledge. I will get to the City later, but -- okay. Let me ask you this. Do you have an understanding as to whether the revised criteria of 1305 that apply to this project is much more stringent for developers to satisfy than the previous ordinance? Mr. Alvarado: No. We have a presentation, and there was a presentation that we did in two years ago in 206 [sic], I think. It was very clearly point out that 1305 points of how our project responded to that 1305 Code, and think Lucia, you're going to present that in a moment. Mr. Sastre: My question, though, is whether you have an understanding as to whether the requirements that are in effect now are more stringent than the ones that were applied by this Commission two times previously and overturned twice previously by the Third District Court of Appeal? Mr. Alvarado: No. Mr. Sastre: You don't. You think they're the same criteria or --? Ms. Dougherty: You're asking him legal questions. Mr. Sastre: Let me ask you this. I know you've been in South Florida now for some time; you've seen some of the changes that have been taking place on Biscayne Boulevard since 2004, and my question is this, would you agree with me that, in general, the zoning along Biscayne Boulevard from 50th Terrace to 79th Street has become more restrictive in terms ofMiMo (Miami Modern) district limitations, SD-9 height limitations, and so forth? Mr. Sastre: Do I agree with you if, in terms of height limitations --? I don't understand your question. City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: Yeah, I know. My question is whether the trend over the past four years since this project was first proposed, went to Commission, do you agree that since that time, the height limitations have become more restrictive? We've got the MiMo district in play, the SD-9 height limitations are more restrictive than what's proposed Mr. Alvarado: I'm aware of the -- Biscayne Boulevard corridor, since we started the project, has had a long process of different options and studies and heights, including Miami 21, which is not valid today, but our project, if we put Miami 21, which is the closest study that has done, it brings -- I think it's a T8 plus a 6 -- or T6, which in total, brings us to a building that we could have built, if Miami 21 passes today, of 156feet. Our project, which complies and it has been approved several times by the Commissioner [sic], has 151 foot -- feet in height, so I know there has been a lot of studies, but I know that the most severe study has been is Miami 21, and we comply, as well, in height and volume and scale with Miami 21. Mr. Sastre: Okay. You understand, though, that what is now in place is 120-foot height limit and that Miami 21 has not been ratified in that respect, and, in fact, there's a countervailing argument as to 35 feet for this project? Mr. Alvarado: I understand that my project or Kubik project is located in a different area, which is an island and we're grandfather with a permitted project that is 150 feet or 51 foot in height, and it's an approved project. Mr. Sastre: Last question. If this project was proposed as a application, a new application today, do you agree that there's no way this would have any chance of passing the current limitations and ordinances for this area ofBiscayne Boulevard absence a variance for the project? Mr. Alvarado: Yeah. Mr. Sastre: You agree with that? Mr. Alvarado: Yeah. Mr. Sastre: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Anymore cross-examine, counsel? Mr. Sastre: No, thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Next witness. Section 1305. Famous Section 1305. Ms. Dougherty: Just to be clear, the last hearing that we had, we did and the City did review this plan under the new 1305. The only difference is it was on -- based on the record below as opposed to any new evidence. That's the difference between the last hearing in 2004 and this one, and what I'd like to do is go through the criteria of 1305 and apply that to our plan. First one is site and urban planning and how do we conform to that. As you see, the urban form and the places that we do have to conform to are on Biscayne Boulevard, 4th Court, 58th Street, and 55th Street Station, and of course, the views ofBiscayne Bay. So the first one is respond to the physical context of the environment. Well, we've done that because we have commercial lining of 24, 000 square feet, completely hiding the garage. We have 10,000 square feet of residential. We have saved the MiMo structure ofAndiamo Pizza, which was designed by Robert Law Weeds [sic], and it's an icon on Biscayne Boulevard and one of the very first MiMo structures. We also have a pedestrian plaza that enhances the pedestrian activity and it's oriented on Biscayne Boulevard continuing the continuous rhythm of connection. I don't have to tell you that on -- just City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 south of this property, you have the Ivax and the Wachovia building also in the island west of Biscayne Boulevard, which is juxtapose to a residential community just immediately to its east. Kubik's orientation respects the natural context of features and the views of Biscayne Bay. It minimizes the impact of parking in the driveways by keeping the orientation of all of the ingress and egress on 4th Court and hiding all of its parking and that's how it responds to the second criteria. Thirdly, it says the buildings are supposed to be oriented towards the corners. Well, we have lots of corners and they're oriented towards every one of them. They orient towards 58th Street, 4th Court, and Biscayne Boulevard. The project should be designed to comply with all applicable landscaping requirements. Well, we've done that by taking into account the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) landscape plans for Biscayne Boulevard and its corridor. We have also agreed with and will incorporate the Design Review comments dealing with a continuous tree canopy of shade trees along all of the edges and curbs. How do we respond to the neighborhood context, which is the second criteria? Its architecture has a direct response, an inspiration for the structures along Biscayne Boulevard, which you can see in these photographs. We have -- we've taken into consideration and preserved the Andiamo Pizza. We have a pedestrian plaza, which is similar to the one on 55th Street Station and oriented towards it with 27,000 square feet of pedestrian plaza, and we also have a -- the master plan also has commercial and office retail on ground level. We have a gallery strip that has -- along Biscayne Boulevard, which complements the 55th Street Station project, and the vegetation is native and complements the neighborhood vegetation, and we will include all of the green canopy that we've described. The towers themselves create a transition in bulk and scale. You can see on the left-hand corner the actual requirement that we have. If you look at this -- the diagram on the left, you can see how the current or the ordinance that was in effect when we first submitted this application said you had to go 120 feet and then have a 45-degree angle, and that's how this project is designed. How do we use color and architectural styles and details and color and materials from the surrounding area? We've used the composition and the colors and the architectural composition ofAndiamo Pizza and its MiMo architectural character composed of double height spaces, glass facades, slim columns, and create a rhythm at the pedestrian level. We've articulated the -- and the next one is 1305.2 -- building facade so that you have horizontal and vertical elements to conform to the composition ofAndiamo and 55th Street Station and the MiMo architectural style and character. We promote pedestrian interaction by having a pedestrian pathway with commercial and retail and work spaces on the ground floor and a pedestrian plaza going right through the building. The design also has -- creates facades that correspond to the human scale by activating the pedestrian path and the commercial and retail living spaces in a rhythmically form and that's how we respond to the human scale. There is a setback just after the commercial areas that respond to the human scale. Kubik does not have any blank spaces or blank walls; they're avoided. They don't have -- they've coordinated all of the design criterias [sic] of the City's staff and we've put a quotations in the bottom there from the City's urban design staff which says we appreciate in consideration of the pedestrian comfort lining and building around the floor with commercial and lining the garage with units which will help to create a more active street along Biscayne Boulevard, 4th Court, and 58th Street, and the introduction of the pedestrian plaza and Andiamo is a great design contribution. This urban design element will create a more human scale and walkable environment. This (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the design criteria or the design comments from your staff. We've provided a useable open space that allows for convenient and visible pedestrian access for the public. It does so by having an open pedestrian walk, an open plaza, and both on Biscayne Boulevard as well as 4th Court, which orients itself to the 55th Street Station. Again, we've -- the landscaping and streetscape is complementary to the public gathering -- well-being of the public, rather, and wraps around the entire site in a continuous shade canopy. We have designed it to minimize conflict points with pedestrians and to have a vehicular safety point by only having one entrance and exit on 4th Court and concentrating all of the driving on 4th Court and away from Biscayne Boulevard and 58th Street. Again, we minimized the number and the widths of the driveways in compliance with the design criteria. It -- we have avoided all parking on the outside, and it's all internalized in the -- both parking and loading is internalized in the project, making it compliant with Section 5 regarding vehicle access and parking. Again, we don't need to have parking City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 areas as a distinct buffer. We've internalized all of our vehicular loading and parking inside the building so that the building is brought down to the street, which is what the City has asked us to do. We've created the screening as a -- the screen is created by the landscape buffer and the visual screening to cover any undesirable mechanical systems at the top. All the service activity has been internalized to make sure it doesn't have any neighborhood discomfort, and the parking levels have been wrapped with commercial and residential and live -work spaces, and the signage will comply with the neighborhood regulations. In fact, other than the signage for the ground floor, there will not be any signage for the residential. And we provided line -- lighting design that conforms to the design features and enhances the public safety and outlines the architectural elements with complete visual character of the building and it minimizes the glare to adjacent properties. So that's how we've -- we comply with Section 1305 of the design review criteria. And this is the same presentation we made in 2004 because at the same time, we thought we were doing it based on the record at that time. Chair Sanchez: Counsel, cross-examine. Mr. Sastre: No. Chair Sanchez: No? Mr. Sastre: Not counsel. No. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Ms. Dougherty: At this time, I'm going to submit for the record the curricula [sic] vitae of Dean Lewis, who's a architect and an urban planner and somebody who actually lives in the neighborhood, and he's going to do his analysis of how we comply with 1305. Chair Sanchez: Counsel, will you be cross-examining this witness? Mr. Sastre: I'll have to see what the testimony is, butt may. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Okay. State your name -- Mr. Lewis: Yes. Chair Sanchez: -- and address for the record. Mr. Lewis: Dean Lewis, principal architect, DB Lewis Architecture and Design. Good morning. I was asked to give my opinion of Kubik and how it complies with the intent of 1305, and in addition to that, its urban surroundings. What I want to present to you briefly and efficiently is Kubik as a viable City -approved and permitted project for the Biscayne Boulevard, and essential to that is in fact the site itself which is a special urban gateway site. This site deserves and merits special attention and significant urban architectural. Why? Because this unique triangular site was generated by the confluence of Biscayne Boulevard's north/south direction, turning easterly, and its intersection and reception as well as termination of north Federal Highway and their interaction with the local east/west street grid framing and triangulating the site along the Northeast 58th Street to the north, okay. Further, the bending northward of the FEC rail corridor created a unique buffer zone for commercial activity and mixed -use development, such as our famed 55th Street Station, Soyka's, Andiamos [sic] and others. This site truly is an urban gateway, as well as an island in and of itself with relationships that are softened and right-of-way setbacks prior to getting to the actual building setbacks. You have over 120 feet average across Biscayne Boulevard, you have 72 feet to the north, facing the R-3 multifamily 50-foot height limit zone; and to the west, C-1, with an additional 75-foot right-of-way in addition to the built-in setbacks. To the east, most importantly, we also have the City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 SD-9 zoning district, which, on the average, adds an additional 150 feet of separation between the R -- residential zoning to Morningside's residents, of which I am one. Therefore, that transition, the step-down zoning is inherent to the SD-9 and on the east side of the boulevard it's activated. Four-story buildings and ten -story buildings surround the southern point, northeastern point, and now the westerly flank of Soyka's triangulated site. Moving forward to remind you and here it is in photographic procession, the urban streetscape. Your 110 feet -- 10 floors, 10 floors to the right, the new Pinnacle residential project we also have on the east side of the boulevard, and the 72-foot right-of-way of Northeast 4th Court. Further, an example, you have to the right in the yellow circle indicating another similar island effect, which buffers and insulates by pure distance and tree canopy, the primarily office in this case and future mixed -use in Kubik's case, development in the island between the neighborhoods east and west, very important, very critical. Again, special sites deserving special architecture. This urban gateway merits and has in Kubik an architecture that is pedestrian friendly, interactive with interactive uses, maintains continuous street facades as all urban planner can wish for; step-down massing and setbacks. Again, be aware of the setback down massing. The first setback here, as I indicate with the arrow, is along the 35-foot -- story commercial retail eyes on the street. I have an additional that's a seven and a half foot setback from the property line. I have an additional 12-foot setback to the top and the base of the residential towers. In total, 26 and a half feet separation from the property line to the glazing in the primary face of the building; added that to your right-of-way distances, there are substantial, soothing and massings that further complement a scale or transition of two buildings, not one building, on the podium, which we are -- they could have proposed and urban and contextual architecture, which further celebrates the gateway, and its corner address its sculpted massing here on the corners as previously identified. Going further, reminding you of the zoning and the proximity. We have C-1 to the west. On the other side of Northeast 4th Court to the north; R-3 with already a transitional SD-12 overlay providing for commercial parking. R-3, as you know, is a 50-foot multifamily zone to the north, and immediately to the east, we have SD-9 and the boulevard itself mixed -use commercial zoning as recommended; and going through some modifications, and finally, the residential neighborhood in Morningside to the west. I find it essential that today we're going to hear from the real stakeholders of the boulevard, those that own property on the boulevard. This is about the boulevard and its immediately adjacency and proximities to the boulevard. Not perhaps well intended, but founded or distant resident or two from the neighboring residency that clearly does not have a hardship, and I'll elaborate on that later. Miami 21, which has also proposed a T6-8 zoning, which would provide up to 156-foot tall structure or volume, multi -story development with bonus entitlements. As I may recall to you that Kubik, in and of itself, is still only 151 feet. And here in the scale or relationship to the zoning and setbacks, this diagram illustrates more clearly the section is east on the left, west to the right, and Kubik in the middle. You see what is referred to by the urbanists of our day, a Cube of Light relationship where the width of the right-of-way dictates the setbacks and building heights with the inclusion of a 45-degree angle. This, in fact, is recommended. It was recommended years ago in the urban design guidelines from Miami -Dade County and is properly employed here and respected. To the east you have the existing residential high-rise, which will further be prevented with SD-9 step-down zoning indicated in green to the residential neighborhoods, and as you can see, is the real foil and step-down relationship that we are looking forward to. In blue is indicated the Miami 21 setbacks, of which Kubik is more than in compliance with, and within and as I indicated earlier, shorter. Its possible building envelope, if we follow these 45-degree angles up, we'd end up with a 20 -- 240-foot high-rise in the middle, as indicated in this image to the right, which the developers decided not to do. Instead, they opted for two towers, additional cost in construction, two course, and all the complexities that go with it to maintain street frontages and a more sensitive massing and volume and scale on the left as indicated here with a -- as well a two-story reduction in the final project and additional setbacks. You'll see this illustrated here with the ground floor permitted plan. Let's start at the top left and work clockwise. You have what is a required seven -and -half -foot setback facing Northeast 4th Court to the west; the average setback here, 30 feet. Passing remote, auto, and service accesses off of Northeast 4th Court providing one single entrance point for both services and vehicular traffic. It's an excellent solution. The City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 parking, as you can see, is totally lined on all three faces above and beyond the request and intent of 1305. Finally, on the north, on the right side, you have your additional setbacks of first ten feet as required and provided, and then at the above 35 feet, you have an additional 25 feet for the residential building itself. That addition to on the further right, the 20-foot setback required for the R-3 developments, you have a total of over 110 feet of separation building face to building face. Okay. And then on the bottom of the screen, Biscayne Boulevard, the commercial liners, all frontages on the left, as indicated. You have a seven -and -a -half -foot required setback at ground level. Up above the first setback is another ten feet, total of a minimum of 17 foot 6, and an additional 10 feet from there to the glazing. Okay. And intensity, intensity meaning building area, we have a buildable area, FAR allowed of 378,000 square feet. Kubik itself is actually proposed at less, 359, 000 feet. Final approved and permitted project. Density, dwelling units per acre. Maximum allowed. Density, 150 dwelling units times two and a half acres, 369 dwelling units allowed. The actual proposed and approved and permitted project, less than 300 dwelling units, 81 percent of its maximum. Okay. Just a few reminders of the zoning in place. Permitted and approved accordingly. Again, SD-9 zoning. The islands, the relationships between its neighbors, respectfully reminding you that SD-9 locates for west of the boulevard with lots deeper than 150 feet to have 120-foot height limit, previously added to that 45 degree setback angle. Okay. And to the north, 110-foot setback building face to building face on the average to the neighboring R-3 district. Here's the urban design guideline manual I mentioned earlier with Cube of Light and its one-to-one ideal relationship for an urban corridor, such as Biscayne Boulevard, meaning the width of your right-of-way equivalent to the height of your building. Otherwise, you get into suburban zoning, you deintensfes, you compromise the boulevard's renaissance. Further, 35-foot height limit on Biscayne Boulevard or any other inferior height limit closely related to the Cube of Light would result in something that we haven't had a chance to really understand or run into, and that is suburban surface parking syndrome. You will be forcing these currently permitted and approved projects on Biscayne, which I'm going to show you of eight stories, forcing them down to less than eight story or, for example, 35-foot height. You're going to take the parking that's built in, lined, integrated, and hidden out of those podiums and you're going to drop them where? In the back, on the surface parking. That's what would end up living with as a neighbor ofMorningside; rear surface parking, dumpsters, and all the derelicted [sic] attractions that it presents. I say no. SD-9 is -- here's an example project that was permitted and approved. Foundation permits pulled. It's called Nilla Bella (phonetic). It's 61 st Street, Marlin Luther King Boulevard and Biscayne. You can see the R-3 relationship on the lower left. Photo montage and the step-down terracing of the building, the fully integrated parking. On the right image you see the commercial integrated lined retail services. At the base of the building stepping back to and identiing curve linear architecture that is unique to this site. Also receiving the bend in Biscayne Boulevard. If you look closely, again, Biscayne Boulevard turns and meets the building, and that facade requires an urban significant architectural statement to succeed in further Biscayne's renaissance. Back to the streets. This is what you see as you approach Kubik and its site, four-story office building to the east; to the leftAndiamos [sic], the tree line triangulation of the sites and Federal Highway's terminus, (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) North 4th Court heading to the north and the westerly due to FEC Corridor's bend. Moving forward, you have what is your urban skyline. Well, you see 30 stories in the far off distance, 27 floors, residential tower, and you see 110 feet as the neighboring big bad guy on the east side of the boulevard. Going back down into the aerial views of how the coagulation of development is moving in the right direction from the circle -- the yellow circle, which indicates our site, and the triangulation previously mentioned. The buildings that are along the SD-9 district terminating further north to the lots, which I'm going to indicate here in the arrow. This is R-4 development. This is R-4, 50 feet, and finally, the residential towers that I mentioned to you. This is Kubik's context. Foiled and protected by over 300 feet of distance on the average from the neighboringMorningside residents. The site modeling -- massing model Montage, Andiamos [sic], the arrival, the turn in the bend to and illustrating the three successive setbacks to the point where you will not even perceive the upper levels of the project. Again, the imposition, if you will, and the foiling or shielding of our neighborhood from our buildings on the east and the future development, if you were to connect City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 this line, tear us down with similar projects, such as Nilla Bella (phonetic). Okay. A view from the west to the east. You see the buildings two towers, not just one, employ a celebrated slot and articulation of daylight commemorating the corner address as well as significantly modern and attractive massings. Here it is in the street. Here its presence be known. This is a gateway project and a gateway destination for pedestrians, activists, artists, clients, diners, and the rest. Overall night view. The tree canopies and boulevard setback protects Morningside. It's a false imposition that is currently claimed that Morningside is being compromised by this project. Here's why. This is what you see from our residents. The impossibility of viewing any buildings on Biscayne Boulevard through the typical Morningside street canopies is proven everyday. Once you're within 50 feet of our oasis, protected artificially -shut off and gated community, unfortunately, you do end up with total separation from the boulevard. You do not know it's there. To claim four blocks in, you're receiving hardship, that's a tough one for anybody to agree with. Again, further example of the point. In conclusion, again, special site, urban gateway, the merits previously articulated, the step-down massing, the street -- continuity of the street facade, the active podium and urban contextual architecture celebrating the gateway and its corner address on the boulevard. Let me just remind everybody of Bob Flanders, vice -- who's vice president and cofounder of the Upper Eastside Miami Council and a Palm Bay resident since '81, clearly stated he supports the project. These people clearly applied for their permits to build long before the law was changed. The building could have been 23 stories high. The developers didn't have to have 50 meetings with the residents. They didn't have to change the project about half a dozen times and they didn't have to add in extra parking spaces. These people have bent over backward to accommodate the neighborhood. If all developers were like this, what a magical world it would be. Here is my opinion. In conclusion, my opinion is that Kubik meets and exceeds the intent and conditions of the urban design guideline set forth in Section 1305 of our 11000 Zoning ordinance, and furthermore, remains substantially compatible with the current draft of the City's future Zoning Code. Thank you very much. Applause. Mr. Sastre: May I cross-examine? May I cross-examine the witness? Chair Sanchez: Sure. Mr. Sastre: Thank you. Sir, you're a licensed practicing architect? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Okay. And you -- you've had to navigate 1305, I guess, both the prior version and the current version? Mr. Lewis: Absolutely. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Would you agree with me that the revised Section 1305, which has -- requires the written findings to 25 components is much more stringent for developers to satisfy? Mr. Lewis: No. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Is it less stringent? Mr. Lewis: Stringent isn't the term I would use to describe it. It's more specific, going from gray to a dark white. Andl think that the compatibilities have been met and still exceeded in the current version of 1305. Mr. Sastre: Let me ask you this. Would you agree with me that since 2004, the zoning along Biscayne Boulevard, along this corridor from 50th Terrace to 79th Street has become more City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 restrictive in terms of height limitations? Mr. Lewis: There was an adopted ordinance to adjust the SD-9 transitional zoning particularly to the east down to instead of a 60-degree angle, a 45-degree angle, and a limit on its height. Yes. Again, that's separate from the triangulated island site of Kubik of which those setbacks, even if it was SD-9 today, would not be employed or required, due to the right-of-way surrounding all sides of this site. Mr. Sastre: Well, this project would be capped, at most, at 120 feet, currently, correct? Mr. Lewis: I was referring to step-downs and transitional zoning, not the maximum height. But if you want to talk about that, that is correct, it would be capped at 120. Mr. Sastre: What if --? Mr. Lewis: But if you do refer to the previous setback diagrams that I indicated with the 45-degree angle, you will not be able to even see the additional stories above that 120 feet, given the setback within 120 -- 45 degrees. That's the whole idea and notion of the Cube of Light. You won't see it above and beyond that angle from any sensitive distance. Mr. Sastre: Okay. I was trying to get a simple yes or no answer as to -- Mr. Lewis: I know. Mr. Sastre: -- whether the zoning -- Mr. Lewis: -- it's not a -- Mr. Sastre: -- has become more restrictive on Biscayne Boulevard in the past four years. Would you agree with me that the answer to that is a yes? Mr. Lewis: No. Mr. Sastre: Okay. So we don't have height limitations now and we did have them before. Mr. Lewis: They're -- I just reiterated the two factors that were added to properly -drafted, in my opinion, SD-9 ordinance. Mr. Sastre: Correct. And those include height limitations now, actually starting in 2004, correct? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Okay. As an architect, someone involved in the community, what is your understanding as to why those changes came into play, what the impotence, the rationale for the developing zoning changes decreasing height of buildings in this area? Why did that come into play? Mr. Lewis: It came in play primarily because cities evolve and grow, and unfortunately, the original zoning on the east side of the boulevard created severe adjacencies to the residential districts, and therefore, the SD-9 overlay was drafted in response to well justified sensitivity to transitional step-down zoning. And it's a tough solution, it's a narrow corridor, it's an imperfect beginning, and hence, we will no longer have the kind of building you have on the east of the boulevard there on the lower left portion of my last image. Mr. Sastre: Do you know whether there is --? City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Lewis: And illustrated here in the model in blue. Mr. Sastre: Yeah. I'm going to talk about that in a second with you, actually. Mr. Lewis: But it's there -- Mr. Sastre: But let me ask you -- Mr. Lewis: -- and it's built, so you have to respond to it. Mr. Sastre: Has there been another traffic study since 2004, since April 2004 -- Mr. Lewis: Performed -- Mr. Sastre: -- for this project? Mr. Lewis: -- by he -- that -- I couldn't -- Lucia. Mr. Sastre: Are you -- well, are you aware of one? Let me just put it that way. Mr. Lewis: Traffic studies are performed regularly. And your point is? Mr. Sastre: No. I'm asking you a specific question, sir. I'm not here testifying as -- Mr. Lewis: Obviously, there's -- Mr. Sastre: -- to this -- Mr. Lewis: -- probably been traffic studies performed. Mr. Sastre: Do you know or do you not know whether there has been a supplemental traffic study performed for this project since April of 2004? Mr. Lewis: I'm not aware of whether it has or not, no. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Thank you. Do you know approximately how many units are in that Falls building, the Falls building being the blue one? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do. What is the relevance again? You want to refer to density? Mr. Sastre: Sir, I'm -- Mr. Lewis: You want to refer to density? Mr. Sastre: -- I'll get to -- Mr. Lewis: Kubik's density is -- Mr. Sastre: No, sir. Please, allow me to ask the questions. Mr. Lewis: -- only 80 percent -- Mr. Sastre: I'm not trying to -- City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Lewis: -- of its maximum. Mr. Sastre: -- joust with you. I'm really trying to get either yes or no answers or very direct answers to questions. Do you know -- well, you already said you do. Tell me approximately how many units -- condo units are in that building. Mr. Lewis: My -- I don't have to answer that. I -- Mr. Sastre: Well, you said you know. Are you now shielding information and evidence from the Commission, sir? Mr. Lewis: If you want the Commission to know how many units there are, tell them. Mr. Sastre: I didn't say I know, and I'm not here to testify, sir. Chair Sanchez: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hey, listen. You got to answer his questions pertaining to how many units. Do you know how many units? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Eighty units. Mr. Sastre: Eighty units. Now, how many units does Kubik have? Mr. Lewis: Two hundred and ninety-three. Mr. Sastre: So that's, what, roughly, three and a half times? Mr. Lewis: It's a different site, as I mentioned clearly and previously. Mr. Sastre: Sir, I -- Chair Sanchez: Just answer the questions. Mr. Sastre: -- understand it's a different site. I'm trying to find out. Do you agree or disagree that that's approximately three and a half times the number of units as opposed to the Falls building? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Thank you. Do you know the approximate height of the Falls building? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: What is that? Mr. Lewis: Hundred and ten feet. Mr. Sastre: Hundred and ten. That includes the super stories. You're not talking about the height to the -- before that little super story, the elevator shaft, whatever? Mr. Lewis: Correct. Mr. Sastre: Do you know what the height is to -- exclude the little elevator shaft, do you know what the height is to the top of the building? Mr. Lewis: No, I don't know exactly. City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: Okay. It's not 90 feet? Mr. Lewis: Ninety -- Mr. Sastre: Does that ring a bell? Mr. Lewis: Close -- well, I think it's actually 85 feet. Mr. Sastre: Okay, 85 feet. Mr. Lewis: It's a ten -story building. Mr. Sastre: Right. I understand. But stories can have different heights, andl think we'll discuss that a little bit too later, maybe with you, maybe not. But -- so about 85 feet, and the Kubik building is 150 feet, not quite twice as big, not quite 100 percent larger in height, but close; fair? Mr. Lewis: No. Mr. Sastre: No. What -- Mr. Lewis: Not in -- Mr. Sastre: -- you're a math guy, can you tell me what the calculus is there, 85 feet versus 151 feet? Mr. Lewis: You're talking about 100 feet plus or minus of pure vertical impact on the boulevard on the east side versus a 120 foot and successive three step -back volume structure of which the 150 feet would not be perceived or perceptible from the boulevard itself so the answer is no, it's not nearly one and a half times higher in its urban impact to the boulevard. Mr. Sastre: It's in fact more than one and a half times -- 151 feet and 85 feet, 85 have -- Mr. Lewis: I think you need to stick with about 100 feet of total height, unless you've measured it. But just to make the math simple, yes, the overall height of the building is 150 feet, but it is not a vertical direct line. Mr. Sastre: I understand. Mr. Lewis: It's setback, andl think you need to recognize that. Mr. Sastre: You mentioned something. I tried to scribble it down real quickly. You mentioned thatMorningside would not be -- the houses in Morningside would not be affected if there's a 350-foot liner zone or something like that. Didl get those numbers roughly in the liner concept? Mr. Lewis: Yes, you did. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Mr. Lewis: Do you want me to elaborate? Mr. Sastre: No, no, no. I want to ask you a direct question -- Mr. Lewis: Okay. City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: -- based on the Kubik presentation. Do you have it in front of you, page 6? Mr. Lewis: I saw it. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Mr. Lewis: I know what you're going to ask. Mr. Sastre: Are you familiar with that on page 6, it actually -- it's got -- they drew it -- they draw it right there for you. It's 160 feet, not 350. Are you aware of that? Mr. Lewis: That's incorrect. Mr. Sastre: Then what's in -- they're incorrect? Mr. Lewis: That diagram is not the dimension I'm referring to. The dimension I'm referring to is from the face of Kubik's east facade to the end most average parcel with the SD-9 zoning, of which you then have your residential zoning neighboring parcels. That is on the average at least 300 feet. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Well, let me ask you simply. You don't take issue with this -- their own diagram, page 6, that shows a difference of 160 feet to the single-family historic district? You don't take issue with that, do you, sir? Mr. Lewis: I just told you the real numbers, so -- Mr. Sastre: Well, I'm not sure whose -- Mr. Lewis: That -- I'm not -- Mr. Sastre: -- numbers to believe. Mr. Lewis: -- sure when that was done. Mr. Sastre: I know you've got different numbers and numbers can be made up by people. Mr. Lewis: I was asked -- Mr. Sastre: I'm just trying to go with what I've heard today. Mr. Lewis: I hear you. Respectfully, I was asked to provide my opinion, analyze the drawings. I did not go back and review their presentation material; purely on the facts and the permitted plans and the project as it exists approved today. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Let me get to that. I keep hearing that, and I've got to address it. Mr. Lewis: I know. Mr. Sastre: What is your understanding of approved today vis-a-vis the Third District Court of Appeals decision that came out in October 2007 where they could not have more emphatically said, there's no 2004 resolution. There's no 2006 resolution. The findings are overturned. They're vacated. They're gone. Have you ever read that appellate decision? Mr. Lewis: That question is not for me. City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: Right. Okay. Then I take issue -- well, strike that. Very quickly. The -- Mr. Lewis: Is that it? Mr. Sastre: We talked -- no, no, no. Very quickly, you spoke about Miami 21, which, of course, is not here yet. Do you agree with me that there is still a fair amount of debate going on with regard to the height on this -- Chair Sanchez: That's irrelevant. Mr. Sastre: -- in this area, whether it's going to be T6/T8 -- there's still some discussion going on -- and secondly, that there's still some discussion going on with regard to how high those stories are going to be, i.e., there's a big difference between a ten foot story and a fourteen- or fifteen foot story. Do you --? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Mr. Lewis: As I said, it's in the current draft. Mr. Sastre: Sure. Andl -- okay. The T6 T8 actually stands for the proposition of 8 to 12 stories, whatever that height might be, but 8 to 12 stories, correct? Mr. Lewis: That's right. Mr. Sastre: Okay. And the 156 or whatever that number was that's been thrown around that even under -- assuming this were to come to pass, which of course, it hasn't, but if it did come to pass, the 156 feet, that takes the maximum 12 foot -- that means you get the 8 stories, plus the maximum bonus -- because that's what it is. That's where the 8 to 12 goes -- and you take that 12 feet times 14 feet, which is also the maximum story height. Is that where that number, 156 or whatever it was, comes from? Mr. Lewis: Yes. To be precise, we took the specific recommended story heights for commercial ground floor retail and a maximum of 14 feet for an appropriate dimension for these urban loft structures. Mr. Sastre: Sure. So your -- the analysis that we've been hearing about this 156 feet is actually taking the absolute outside, assuming you get all the bonuses, et cetera, and you get the maximum height on the height of stories, that's where that number that's been floated around as a possible perspective height in this area. That's where that comes from? Mr. Lewis: Yeah. I would define that as maximum and best use of the property. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Let's -- Mr. Lewis: Of which we're still less than. Mr. Sastre: Let me address one other thing quickly from your testimony and then move on to something about this unlimited height that keep hearing about. Did hear you correct that you said that the width of Biscayne Boulevard in this area where Kubik is proposed is 120 feet? Mr. Lewis: On the average, correct. Mr. Sastre: Well, on the average -- City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Lewis: From South Pointe -- Mr. Sastre: -- in front of Kubik or --? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: You're not familiar with an 80 foot width in that area? Does that -- Mr. Lewis: No. Mr. Sastre: -- sound more accurate? Mr. Lewis: No. We measured it off of County records. Mr. Sastre: Do you happen to have that data here that we can verify your testimony that the average is 120 feet versus an 80 foot width, which was incidentally and is in the 2004 record and it's undisputed that it was 80 feet. Do you have your calculations where you came up with 80 -- 120 feet? Mr. Lewis: We do, but not -- I don't think they're readily available. We took that off of the plans that were available to us, aerial photographs, photo metric dimensions, and pacing it ourself [sic] on foot. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Mr. Lewis: And again, the critical dimension is not just the right-of-way of the boulevard; it is the building face to building face dimensions -- Mr. Sastre: Do you take issue -- Mr. Lewis: -- which are greater than 155 feet. Mr. Sastre: -- with Elizabeth Plater Zyberk's treatise, which was cited by Kubik back in 2004, the Urban Design Manual, I believe it was called -- andl can get the specific page references -- but do you take issue with at that time that the information from her book, cited by Kubik, was that you should have a one-to-one ratio with the street width to the building. Do you take issue with that -- Mr. Lewis: That -- you're referring to -- Mr. Sastre: -- assuming my recollection of the prior testimony, which is in the record, is accurate? Mr. Lewis: No, I don't take issue with that. Mr. Sastre: Okay. So if it's 80 feet as -- Mr. Lewis: That's called -- that's the Cube of Light relationship, the 45-degree angle generated from 120 feet from which your setbacks are then derived. Mr. Sastre: I -- Do you know whether her manual, where she talks about that one-to-one ratio didn't address cubes of lights and angles and stuff like that, but it spoke -- Mr. Lewis: By the way -- City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: -- purely to the height of the building compared to the width of the street? Mr. Lewis: Yes. Let's be clear. The one-to-one relationship is not the dimensionfrom the property line to property line. It is the dimensionfrom building face to building face, in this case, which is clearly over 150 feet -- 155, to be exact, and with that, you end up with a building well within its boundaries of 120 feet and a 45-degree angle of a total all in height of 150 feet 8 inches. Is that it? Mr. Sastre: Let's talk briefly about this concept of unlimited height, andl believe you testified words to the effect of they didn't have to go through all these changes, they didn't have to revise the plans; that they did it, I think you said, because of the 50 or so meetings; some other circumstance. But there might -- Mr. Lewis: I didn't -- Mr. Sastre: -- generally paraphrasing -- Mr. Lewis: -- say that. That was a quote from a well -respected resident in the community, which I hope we have a chance to hear from shortly because I don't want to take -- Mr. Sastre: Okay. Well -- Mr. Lewis: -- everybody's time. Mr. Sastre: -- let me ask you this, then, specifically. Are you aware that they had to change this project in February of 2004 because it had been rejected outright for an outright denial by Planning & Zoning and PAB? Mr. Lewis: What know is that this project has, from the beginning, been borne with all good intentions and a contextual response to the neighbors, their issues, their concerns; and the opportunity now to hear from them will clam that. Mr. Sastre: Well, let's put aside -- Mr. Lewis: The details -- Mr. Sastre: -- the neighbors because -- and God rest his soul, Commissioner Teele had an excellent statement back then, which may come to bite residents one way or the other, but he said "This is not a plebiscite." So I'm trying to stick to the facts and to the law with you, ifI may. This cube of light that you've been speaking of -- Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: -- would that apply to downtown, to Brickell, to Edgewater? Mr. Lewis: No, it would not. Mr. Sastre: Why not? Mr. Lewis: It's not applicable to CBD (Central Business District). Mr. Sastre: Why not? Mr. Lewis: Because it's a much more urban -intense zoning and density. This is 150 dwelling City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 units to net acre; that's over 400. Mr. Sastre: Let me -- I -- you're getting exactly the last area I want to touch on with you, which is -- we spoke about the unlimited height. We spoke about, I think -- maybe a little bit about lot areas and maximum square footages and stuff like that, but -- Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: -- and that -- some of that all comes from Article 4, the zoning provisions of Article 4, correct? Gross lot area, the square footage is allowed. Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Is that Article --? Mr. Lewis: You're talking about intensity. Now we were talking about density. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Well, I -- here's what I want -- I just want to make sure I understand where this -- the concept of the square footage is and the lot area and stuff. That comes from Article 4? Mr. Lewis: It comes from the current Zoning Code which describes gross lot multiplied by your coefficient. That's right. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Andl apologize. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to see ifI can confine -- if that comes from Article 4, if you know? Well, let me just -- for my hypothetical, I want you to assume that that information that tells you how big you can build and what your density is going to be, I want you to assume that comes from Article 4, and here's -- Mr. Lewis: Okay. Mr. Sastre: -- my question. Mr. Lewis: I'll assume that. Mr. Sastre: Article 4 is not to be read exclusively to grant unlimited height without analysis under Article 5, the PUD (Planned Unit Development) bonus in this case, Article 13, the design review criteria, and the limitations therein, Article 17, the MUSP criteria, or Article 23, which speaks maximum as not being entitlement. You're not saying that Article 4, even though it allows under that provision a certain amount of square footage, you're not saying it trumps all of these other provisions and their applications? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chair Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Bru: I think that, you know, we do need to afford very liberal cross-examination in this process to be fair to everyone, but the witness has been testing as to technical issues. This line of questioning now is getting into legal conclusions and interpretation of our Zoning Code, which is really outside the scope of his direct testimony; andl don't think that that's a proper question. Mr. Sastre: That was the last question -- Chair Sanchez: Counsel -- City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: -- and the reason why it's appropriate is because he's a licensed architect. He deals with these statutes. He applies them. He applies the ordinances. That's why I want to see ifI can get a response on the record as to whether Article 4 is to be read together with all these other limitations, restrictions, whatever we want to call them as opposed to read in isolation. Chair Sanchez: All right. Counsel, does that conclude your -- Mr. Sastre: That will conclude -- Chair Sanchez: -- cross-examine [sic]? Mr. Sastre: -- the cross-examination. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lewis: Okay. My answer is -- let me remind you that Kubik is designed with an 80 percent maximum density and a significantly less amount of FAR than is permitted within Article 4. That's it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Chairman -- Chair Sanchez: Okay. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- I have a question. Chair Sanchez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sarnoff, you're recognized. Commissioner Sarnoff. Mr. Lewis, are you here being compensated for your testimony? Mr. Lewis: No. I was asked to provide my opinion and present it. Commissioner Sarnoff. Did you register today as a lobbyist? Mr. Lewis: Yes, out of the abundance of caution. Chair Sanchez: All right. Thank you. Applicant, anymore witnesses you want to bring up? Ms. Dougherty: I don't have anymore witnesses and we have closed. I would just ask -- I do have a -- letters from folks who couldn't be here. Should put them in the public --? Chair Sanchez: Please, put them in the -- Ms. Dougherty: Okay. Chair Sanchez: -- record. Provide them to the City Clerk. Ms. Dougherty: Andl also have a video from somebody who couldn't be here, so I'm going to do that at the public portion as well. Chair Sanchez: Yes. Thank you. All right. That concludes the applicant. Counsel -- Mr. Sastre: Yes. Chair Sanchez: -- they have -- I think that one thing that we've been here very patient. You've had plenty of time. How much time are you going to need? City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: Clock was 51, but -- Chair Sanchez: How much time would you like? Mr. Sastre: Well, I just -- I think 51 should be enough, but that's what they used. I just saw 42 put on the clock. I just wanted to point that out. Chair Sanchez: So you need 42 minutes? Mr. Sastre: No, no, no, no, no. What's on the clock currently is 42. I just wanted to point out that kept track how long their presentation was, and it did stop for cross-examination, so I'm not including -- Chair Sanchez: That's fine. Listen -- Mr. Sastre: Okay. Chair Sanchez: That's perfectly fine. Ms. Thompson: Excuse me. Chair, every time there was a break for cross-examination, we stopped the clock. Whenever they had a technical issue, we stopped the clock. According to our records, there's a total time of 42 minutes. Mr. Sastre: All right. I -- Chair Sanchez: Counsel, do you feel that we have provided you with ample time to cross-examine, present your case to this legislative body? Mr. Sastre: Well, cross-examine, yes, so far, but we haven't started our presentation; andl specifically watched the clock tick down first all 30 minutes and then down to 9 minutes and 9 and a half minutes. I specifically saw that. So if you saw something differently, then from the 42 Ms. Thompson: Chair, with all due respect, they ran down 30 minutes -- Chair Sanchez: Madam Clerk -- Ms. Thompson: -- and as you see -- Chair Sanchez: Madam Clerk -- Ms. Thompson: -- 30 minutes is what we put on there and it ticked down. Chair Sanchez: -- don't worry about it. Counsel, how much time are you going to need? Mr. Sastre: I would just ask for the same amount of time, which I calculated at 51 minutes as I was watching, but -- Chair Sanchez: Fifty-one minutes. You're going to talk for 51 minutes? Mr. Sastre: I doubt it, but I just want the same amount of time allotted to each side. That's my only point. Andl guess we could take issue with how the clock was kept, butt know it was stopped for the cross-examination -- City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Well -- Mr. Sastre: -- but I expect we're going to be able to conclude with -- well within 51 minutes. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Because you're losing Commissioners as you go on. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Chair Sanchez: But you have -- I want to afford you the equal amount of time, so build your record, and then we're going to go with all the speakers. We have, I think, like 40-something speakers, so this will probably -- this item will probably take most of the day today, which is fine, so you're recognized for the record. Mr. Sastre: Okay. What I'm going to do first is just for about three minutes, introduce a little background about it, and then I'm going to turn it over to Elvis Cruz to give a PowerPoint presentation; and we'll have an expert called to the stand also. But I think it's important to correct something again that heard, which I felt was a misstatement and it occurred at the last hearing, with regard to what the Third District Court ofAppeal did. I thought heard today that it was almost a technicality; that denovo versus not denovo was why we were remanded. What the Court of Appeals said was that, basically, I was right last time; that the City Attorney misadvised the Commission, that he misinterpreted the prior ruling; and the Third District Court ofAppeal thought they had to go out of their way to remind the City, to remind the lower court and this Commission that, hey, the 2004 decisions, findings, issues, that's gone, that's out the window. The 2005 -- 2006, that's all completely out of the window. There are no valid findings. There's no valid permit. Chair Sanchez: Couldl interrupt you for one minute? Mr. Sastre: Absolutely. Chair Sanchez: Elvis? Elvis Cruz: Sir. Chair Sanchez: What are you doing? Mr. Cruz: I'm going to be part of our presentation. He said he was going to give an intro for about three minutes, and then I was going to give the PowerPoint, which will be very informative and it's very condensed. Chair Sanchez: And that would be -- Mr. Cruz: And it's only about seven minutes. Mr. Sastre: Yes. Chair Sanchez: Fine. It'll be in this time? Mr. Sastre: Yes, absolutely. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Sastre: Yes, it is going to be part of my time. Chair Sanchez: Okay. City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Sastre: Absolutely. So that's the first thing wanted to make clear. Then importantly, we've provided you all with a brief memo, which basically says this project should not get a PUD bonus, a 20 percent bonus; it does not qualify for one. We're also attacking the interpretation and the application of that statute as being unconstitutional. But really, what we're going to be getting at with the PUD bonus, which allowed for a 20 percent increase in square footage, is the fact that the findings of Planning & Zoning Department emphatically stated that this building should not get a PUD bonus. They emphatically stated that it increases the size of the building, it results in a out -of -scale building. That was Planning & Zoning, and that was in April of 2004. And the significance of that is the following: There has never, since April 2004, been a Comprehensive Planning and zoning analysis conducted by the City for this project under the revised Section 1305. The -- we believe that the old findings, where they specifically rejected this project, is at least the PUD as well as asking for a further reduction height, we believe that stands because they were obviously -- they even mentioned the Biscayne corridor study and the trend and that's what they were basing their decision on back then in recommending that the project only be approved without the 20 percent bonus and with a further reduction in height. That has never been revisited. That's never been amended. IfI need to, I can get into what happened with regard to the mystery Zoning analysis that found its way into the 2006 record, but hopefully, I won't have to address that and, hopefully, when the time comes, I can get some -- a concession on -- that there was -- has been no subsequent study by Planning & Zoning since 2004; and then I'll also touch on the design review criteria as well briefly, but I'm going to go ahead and let Elvis give the substantive presentation at this point. Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, vice president of the Morningside Civic Association. Commissioners, today marks the 59th appearance at City Hall by neighbors of the Upper Eastside to fight high-rises. At this time, I'm asking everyone here in opposition to this project to please stand and be recognized. Please know that there were many people who wanted to be here today but could not miss work. Thank you, everybody, for coming. Chair Sanchez: Elvis, excuse me for a minute. Folks, this item is going to be the item that's going to be heard till we break for lunch, so you're -- if you're here for any other item, go have lunch and then come back because this is the -- I just want -- don't want to hold anybody back here, and see some people that are here not for this item. So this item is probably going to go on for, I would say, another maybe hour, hour and a half, then we're going to break for lunch, and then we'll come back, okay. I'm sorry for the interruption. Mr. Cruz: No problem, Commissioner. We're requesting that this building be limited to a height of 35 feet. Why? Because it's not about what someone wants; it's about what the law says, and the law says FAR and height are maximums, not entitlements. Section 1300 of the Zoning Ordinance says any Major Use Special Permits applies to design, character, and scale to assure consideration of the particular circumstances of each case to protect the public interest, the neighborhood, and the City as a whole. And you know Section 1305.2 empowers you to protect the public interest with these design review criteria, respond to the physical contextual environment, taking into consideration urban form and respond to the neighborhood context and create a transition in bulk and scale. That language is remarkably similar to this. The plan will establish standards that emphasize a human scale -- remember that word, please, human scale -- pedestrianfriendly boulevard that promotes compatible development to respond to the context of the boulevard and its immediate surrounding neighborhoods. Those comments came from then -Commissioner Johnny Winton from this brochure created by the Planning Department for the Biscayne Boulevard charrette. As input to that charrette, every homeowners' association in the Upper Eastside requested a height limit of 30 feet. Where on earth did they get a number of 30 feet? From the City ofMiami Planning Department's own Upper Eastside Master Plan, which recommended a maximum height of 30 feet. The first draft of that charrette's consultants' report included a recommendation of three stories, and that was hardly surprising because that City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 City ofMiami Planning Department brochure included these seven photographs as examples of good urban design for upper Biscayne. Every one of these photographs shows two- and three-story buildings. The last one came from a planning firm we all recognize, Duany Plater Zyberk, or DPZ, the City's Miami 21 consultant. If you were to look at the Miami 21 Web site, you'd find these examples of good urban design: three-story buildings. This March 25 newspaper story about Miami 21 included three pictures, submitted by the Planning Department, as examples of the good urban design that Miami 21 was proposing. All are predominantly three stories or less. At this location, Biscayne Boulevard is only 80 feet wide, 80 feet, not 120 feet as the applicant's witness said earlier, even though their own plans showed 80 feet. This is a copy of the plans for Kubik that shows 80 feet. What is the appropriate scale for an 80-foot-wide commercial street? Well, remember how this Planning Department brochure promised us a human -scaled Biscayne Boulevard? What exactly does that mean, human scale? Here is the Miami -Dade County Planning & Zoning Department's Urban Design Manual. On page 4, the Urban Design Manual says, "Human scale is the basis of urban design as it pertains to the dimensions of objects and spaces including building heights." On page 14, it shows the preferred scale as having three-story buildings. I quote, "In this preferred example, the ratio is slightly less than one to three. Human scale is achieved by a tight section, including landscape, and three-story buildings." Here are some drawings from the same manual. They show two - and three-story buildings as examples of appropriate scale on a commercial corridor, but those were all pictures of what should be on Biscayne. What actually is the physical contextual environment of a neighborhood context, which 1305.2 requires any new buildings to respond to? On the 2.48 miles of Biscayne Boulevard north of 48th Street, 95 percent of the properties are two stories or less, with only 14 buildings higher than two stories and eight of those are only three stories. There is, however, a ten -story building across the street from the proposed site, at 5701Biscayne. It's flanked on three sides by single-family homes, and it was out of scale when it was built illegally in 1973, illegal because there was not enough net lot area to allow such a large building. So they had to buy the house behind it before they could get their certificate of occupancy. Even today, there is no other ten -story or higher building on the east side of Biscayne from well below 36th Street to far above the City limits. Even today, there is no other ten -story or higher building on the west side of Biscayne from 48th Street to the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) building at 79th Street. Does it make any sense to use a 35-year-old violation of scale to just another violation of scale? Commissioners, there are three historic districts in the Upper Eastside, Morningside, which is not only Miami's first historic district, but also Miami's first national historic district; the Bayside historic district, and the newest, the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard historic district, which is Miami's first commercial historic district, and you've all been there, and you're aware of the strong efforts being made to help it succeed. The proposed 150-foot tall, 400-foot wide building, two and a half miles from downtown, built along the MiMo district would be a catastrophic blow to the architectural context, character, and scale of the MiMo and Morningside historic districts, even the Planning Department's analysis said so; and here's a copy of it highlighted The requested PUD bonus results in a potentially taller structure that does not contextually fit on this specific property. The proposal should be modified to eliminate the requested PUD bonus. The subject proposal should be modified with respect to height in order to produce a project that is more in character with the context of Biscayne Boulevard as it relates to height. The applicants did save the Andiamo Pizza building, but they didn't mention that they demolished the historically -significant Miami Women's Club. The applicants did meet many times with area neighbors, but those meetings never resolved the problem of the project's bulk and scale. Here we have the scale model. The building you see in blue is the Flats building. There was some misinformation given earlier. The top of the ceiling, the rooftop, is 91 feet above ground level. I've measured it myself with a tape measure. It's 91 feet high to the top of that building. It has 38 units, not 80; 38 units in this building. It's about, what, seven or eleven times less than the Kubik building. Someone do the math for me. This shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the proposed Kubik building is completely out of context with the area. The notion that a setting sun won't throw shadow onto this neighborhood or this area simply doesn't fly. You can see it for yourself. The design dwarfs everything around it. Look at the single-family homes across 58th Street and how they'll be City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 looking up at this building. This house here is owned by Cesar Hernandez Canton, who's in the audience right over there. These are pictures of those single-family homes I just pointed out across 58th Street. The two blocks north of the Kubik site have 41 single-family homes, most of them with the same historic architecture as Morningside, which it was once a part of. The applicants say that this area is R-3 as if it makes them not worth protecting. This neighborhood has been evaluated and meets the criteria for being designated a national historic district. This means the Kubik site is potentially sitting at the intersection of three historic districts, including two nationally -designated districts. Nowhere else in the City ofMiami does such a situation exist. There is case law that applies here as well in the Battaglia case. The Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled, "The 35-foot height requirement appears to be reasonably related to the stated policies of both Orange County and Maitland to preserve the residential nature of the area." In summary, the Morningside Civic Association and others urge you to do as you have done three times before to protect the Upper Eastside by limiting the height of this project to 35 feet. Please note that the requested height of 35 feet has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion; rather, it comes from objective third party competent substantial evidence I've presented today, the Miami Planning Department and their Biscayne Boulevard charrette, Upper Eastside Master Plan, Miami 21 and DPZ, the Miami -Dade County Urban Design Manual, the existing built environment, and Florida case law, the Battaglia case. Please protect Miami's neighborhoods, Miami's past, and Miami's future by limiting the height of this project to 35 feet. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Applause. Chair Sanchez: Cross-examine. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. I just have to ask you a few questions for the record. Are you a registered architect? Mr. Cruz: No, ma'am. Ms. Dougherty: Are you an urban planner? Mr. Cruz: No, Lucia. As you well know, I am neither an architect or an urban planner. I'm a civic activist. I've been active in the Upper Eastside since 1980. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. That answers my question. Mr. Cruz: You don't want me to keep talking like your witness did? Ms. Dougherty: I just asked you a simple question. Mr. Cruz: Okay. All right. Ms. Dougherty: I have also another question. You referenced several provisions of these plans and books. Do you have them for the record, for -- the entire plan and/or book or study for the record? Mr. Cruz: Could you be more specific as to --? Ms. Dougherty: In other words, you made quotations out of these studies. We don't know what the context of those quotations are -- Mr. Cruz: Okay. Ms. Dougherty: -- so I'd like to have you put them all in the record so that we can be clear what City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 the context is that you've pulled out of them. Mr. Cruz: All of those -- I assume you're referring to -- give you specifics on what you're asking me is the Upper Eastside Master Plan. That is a public document that was created by the City of Miami's Planning Department, so that's already part of the public record, I would imagine. Ms. Dougherty: So I'd like to incorporate all of the plans that -- all of studies that he referred to for the record. Do you have copies so that you can submit them? Mr. Cruz: I do have a copy at home, but like I said, they're already in the Planning Department. Ms. Dougherty: All right. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. All right, counsel, 35 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. Sastre: Plenty of time. Chair Sanchez: Plenty of time. Mr. Sastre: Plenty of time. I would like to -- I think need to veri some things for the record with Planning & Zoning, and I'd like to see ifI could ask Ms. Slazyk to answer some questions. Ms. Bru: You're entitled to cross-examine witnesses who have put on testimony. No one from the Planning Department has put on any testimony. Mr. Sastre: Okay, then. Mightl ask the --? Chair Sanchez: Counsel, we're -- one of the Commissioner [sic] has to just step out for a minute, private matters. If we could just take a -- maybe a one -minute recess because if he leaves, we lose quorum -- Mr. Sastre: Very well. Chair Sanchez: -- and we have to maintain -- Mr. Sastre: Okay. Chair Sanchez: All right, so we'll take a one -minute recess -- two -minute recess. ["Later... 'J Chair Sanchez: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the City ofMiami Commission is back in order. We're still on PZ.1. We just had took a two -minute recess and we're back. Counsel, you may proceed with your testimony. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Chair Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Sastre: I'm going to call the expert last. What I'd like to do, though, briefly, is to see ifI can get Mr. Lavernia to affirm some of my understanding concerning whether or not they're recommending the PUD bonus of 20 percent and -- Chair Sanchez: Madam Attorney. He could -- City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Ms. Bru: Again, Mr. Chairman, I -- I think -- I thought I was clear. You're here putting on your case -- Chair Sanchez: His case. Ms. Bru: -- presenting your competent substantial evidence, if it turns out to be that, as to why this project should not be approved. The Planning Department hasn't put on their presentation yet. When the Planning Department puts on their presentation, you can cross-examine whoever it is from the Planning Department and establish whatever issue you're trying to establish, but you just can't call witnesses randomly now. Chair Sanchez: Sir, you may proceed. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Thank you. Before I put on the expert, I just want to see ifI can underscore where I'm going with this or will be going with it when Mr. Lavernia gets up to talk about Planning's position. It is my understanding -- andl certainly know it was the case back in April of 2004 -- that the recommendation -- and it was a very thoughtful -- it's actually part of the papers that we've submitted to the Commission today -- in a six page analysis spoke directly to the issues that we're talking about here, and they said, you know, we'll approve this, but with some major conditions attached. And they specifically rejected the 20 percent floor area ratio bonus, and they found that if it was granted or permitted the PUD bonus, that it would allow an extremely large amount of potential development on the site and that given the Biscayne Boulevard study and recommendations of limitations placed on height development and the requested -- and they found that the requested bonus would result in a potentially taller structure that does not contextually fit on this specific property, and it was for that reason that they asked that the PUD bonus of 20 percent not be granted; and we'll be addressing that a little bit more too. They also spoke in one of their findings on -- still on page 4 of 6 of that 2004 analysis -- that the "potential negative effect of building height immediately adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard, the subject proposal should be modified with respect to height in order to produce a project that is more in character with the context of Biscayne Boulevard as it relates to height." And this was their finding. These were their conclusions in April 2004, even before we had the -- some of the changes put into place, and of course, more are forthcoming and more have occurred since then. And you know, then their final analysis, they said well, we will approve of this project with the conditions that those two conditions are satisfied before it will be approved, otherwise, it "should not be approved, " so they were very strong in their position in that respect, and it's my understanding that they will stand up to that and not back down from those specific opinions concerning the context and scale of the building as well as the 20 percent PUD bonus. That said, what I'd like to do now is go ahead and call Arthur Marcus, who is being presented as an expert architect in this matter. He's also prepared a report, which I will provide you copies of and -- Mr. Marcus. Chair Sanchez: Mr. Marcus, good afternoon. You're recognized for the record. Arthur Marcus: Good afternoon. My name is Arthur Marcus, 1450 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach. Commissioners, I am a professional architect for over 30 years with a far-ranging practice encompassing all types of building and urban design; and I'm here to oppose the Kubik project, speaking pro bono for the Miami -- Morningside Civic Association. I'm opposing the project as it is currently designed in terms of the massing, the context, and the height. I've worked diligently for many years in Miami Beach, not only as an architect, but as a citizen activist, and as a member and chairman of the Miami Beach Design Review Board and the Historic Preservation Boards [sic], dealing repeatedly with this issue of ensuring that new buildings in historic neighborhoods fit into the existing architectural context. Now, this building may not be exactly in a historic building [sic], but it certainly is, as Elvis just said, the confluence of three potential historic districts. I've also been part of the team behind the City of Miami Beach campaign in Miami Beach, which educated the public about rational development City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 in South Beach, and in that campaign we argued that overdevelopment is truly detrimental to a community's health and well being. We've learned that critical issues such as building height, building massing, open space between buildings, contextual scale, and the ability to see the sky matter deeply to our residents and can have a long -ranging effect upon the quality of life in all of our neighborhoods. Kubik, a 150-foot tall and 400-foot wide wall of a building would abruptly intrude and irrevocably alter the existing predominantly one- and two-story scale of the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard historic district. New construction, especially in such a low -scale neighborhood such as this, should always respect and take cues from the existing surrounding urban context. This concept is ordained in Section 1305.2 of your Zoning Code as has been previously established Nowhere else along the MiMo historic district has such an assemblage of ten separate lots been put together to allow such a massive project. All the other buildings in the district are built on only one or two lots with open space between each building and not a 400-foot long facade as is proposed here. As the model shows, the proposed project fails to respond to the architectural context of the single-family homes across 58th Street in Palm Grove and across Biscayne Boulevard in the Morningside historic district, nor does it respond to the 27 blocks of the MiMo historic district by failing to create an urban design transition of building mass and scale which respects the existing surrounding streetscape rather than smothering it. This urban design principle of planning new structures which are harmonious with the adjacent physical environment appropriate to the relative scale of the adjacent neighborhood and compatible in mass and scale that's supported by not only commonly accepted contemporary urban design practices, but it's also supported by your own governmental advocacy as has been stated here today already. The Miami -Dade County Planning Department's Urban Design Manual has already illustrated three stories as the example for the preferred scale for commercial corridors. The creation and success of the MiMo historic district confirms that this stretch of Biscayne Boulevard has the character and appearance of historic building heights, scale, setback and open space that should be preserved, and the Miami Planning Department charrette examples of appropriate building designs for Biscayne Boulevard show two- and three-story buildings. With all due respect to the presentation of the project previously by the attorney and the expert witness, I don't believe that any parcel in a city is an island unto itself. This project has been presented as an island and as one -- someone once famously said, no man is an island, no block is an island And we all live together and we all have to really deal with the surrounding city scape that we are confronted with, and you can't just plan something as if it stands in isolation. It's a wonderful architectural exercise, but it doesn't stand in isolation. So it's unfortunate that City ofMiami has overlooked its very own criteria with respect to relative building scale. Thus, I recommend that you not only listen to the arguments of your own residents and constituents, listen to the governmental zoning experts in limiting the maximum height of this building to 35 feet as the appropriate height for buildings proposed to be sited close to these historic buildings -- districts and single-family homes. In closing, the City Commission has previously protected the MiMo district by allowing three other permits on the condition that they be no higher than 35 feet. I recommend that you do the same in this instance. One other comment is, as you can see from the proposed -- the scale of -- the model that shows the relative scale of one -and two-story homes in the Palm Grove area and the Morningside area as relative to the proposed Kubik development, I really believe that the shadow studies that were submitted were totally inaccurate because in the -- I mean, the worst case scenario may be, for the sake of argument, December 22, but in late summer, in late June, when you have a high sun and the sun starts setting, you're going to have a shadow of three or four blocks long from this buildings, which will certainly impact everyone around the neighborhood. So I urge you to take this into consideration. I know it's not an easy matter, but I think there's a lot of very good criteria that could guide you in your decision. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Applause. Chair Sanchez: Ladies and gentlemen, please refrain from clapping, cheering, whistling. All City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 right, counsel -- Ms. Dougherty: I just have -- Chair Sanchez: -- cross-examine. Ms. Dougherty: -- a few questions. Chair Sanchez: Sir. Mr. Marcus. Mr. Marcus: First time I've seen so much cross-examination. Chair Sanchez: Yeah. It's the first time in a long time we've had M&M [sic] for lunch. Commissioner Sarnoff. We've had what? Chair Sanchez: M&Ms for lunch. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Marcus -- Chair Sanchez: There's always a first time. Ms. Dougherty: -- the three projects that were turned down by the City and were recommended for three stories, are they different than this in terms of where they are on the boulevard? Mr. Marcus: Well, obviously, they're located on the east side of the boulevard as opposed to the west side of the boulevard. Ms. Dougherty: Right. And the east side is where the residential -- the single-family residential houses are, correct? Mr. Marcus: Not entirely. There are some single-family houses certainly on the west side of the boulevard also, the Palm Grove area to the north of this. Ms. Dougherty: Let me just ask you -- I'm going to get to that. Just directly north of this property, across 58th Street, there are some single-family houses, but what is it zoned? Mr. Marcus: Well, you just said -- you've said, I think, R-5, which is 50 feet. Ms. Dougherty: It's R-3, which is -- Mr. Marcus: R-3, rather. Ms. Dougherty: -- 50 -- right, which allows for 50 feet. What about on the boulevard? Mr. Marcus: Well, the boulevard is obviously zoned higher, but we're just -- Ms. Dougherty: What is that -- Mr. Marcus: -- stating the point. Ms. Dougherty: -- zoning classification that's on the boulevard? Mr. Marcus: I don't have that right at hand. City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Ms. Dougherty: IfI told you it was office zoning, would you believe me? Mr. Marcus: I would have to check with my attorney. Ms. Dougherty: Okay. And ifI told you it was 95 feet, would you believe that? Mr. Marcus: I'm not sure. Ms. Dougherty: Well, okay. Do -- you didn't review the entire shadow studies, did you? Mr. Marcus: All I saw was the one page in the booklet that you handed out that had four very dim pictures showing shadows. That was the only one. Ms. Dougherty: But in other words, you -- the complete shadow study that is in the package and that is on the Web site -- that's been on the Web site -- Mr. Marcus: No, I didn't -- Ms. Dougherty: -- for a very -- you didn't review them all. Mr. Marcus: -- I did not see that. Ms. Dougherty: We took the worst case scenario and you dispute the fact that the -- in the worst case scenario, there is no shadow that is on -- across the Bis -- Mr. Marcus: When do you quote the worst case scenario, December 22? Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Mr. Marcus: That's what was said earlier. Ms. Dougherty: That's right. Mr. Marcus: What I'm stating is that that may not be the worst case scenario -- Ms. Dougherty: Well, you didn't review all of the rest of them. Mr. Marcus: -- in terms of official sun guidelines, but when you live in South Florida and you live here in late summer and August when the shadows get really long, that's what really affects the adjacent neighborhoods. Ms. Dougherty: Well, we did have all of them, and what we're testifying and what Camilo has said is this was the worst case scenario. All of them are in their package. All of them are on the Web site. You didn't review them. Mr. Marcus: I would -- I'm saying I did not see the Web site, but I did see what you handed out today. Ms. Dougherty: Okay. Were you part of the charrette for the City ofMiami -- Mr. Marcus: No, I was not. Ms. Dougherty: -- when they made a recommendation of 95 feet -- Mr. Marcus: No, I was not. City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Ms. Dougherty: -- not 35 feet? Mr. Marcus: No. Ms. Dougherty: Okay. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Marcus, thank -- Mr. Marcus: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: -- you so much. Always a pleasure to see you. Counsel, you got 30 -- 25 minutes and 50 seconds. Mr. Sastre: Plenty, plenty, plenty of time. I'm actually going to reserve that time, although I'm sure I won't need it all; andl guess I'll let the City go with their presentation, then -- what I'd like to do is see ifI could reserve -- I know I'm not going to use 25 minutes. Maybe ten minutes after the City gets up and give their position, I'll cross-examine. Chair Sanchez: Are you willing to waive this time and just reserve ten minutes? Is that what you want to do? Mr. Sastre: I think that's more than enough, yes. Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Sastre: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: So you got ten minutes afterwards. Can we get the City? Okay. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. First analysis for this project was done on 2003. Planning Department has recommendations and conditions. It was review on 2004. In 2003 the first one was review under the 1305 criteria that we have been using for 20 years. We review it again on 2004; there was no clarification of 1305. It was happening at the same time that this analysis was done. We review it under that criteria, and we again find that this analysis was still valid with the same conditions. I'm going to read the three conditions that the Planning put, which are -- Chair Sanchez: So -- excuse me. What you're saying that the analysis [sic] are valid? Mr. Lavernia: The analysis is -- that's exactly what I said. The analysis of 2004 was valid, and we feel that 2000 -- today it's still valid, the analysis with the same conditions. Chair Sanchez: Because -- Mr. Lavernia: After reviewing -- Chair Sanchez: -- one of the many arguments that have been proffered is that it's not valid; that every time that you come back to the Commission, you must go through the process. Mr. Lavernia: I'm reiterating that we feel that the analysis was valid and still valid. Chair Sanchez: And it's still valid? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, with the conditions that we're going -- I'm going to read for the records that City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 we put as part of our analysis as number 11, pursuant to the UDRB and the Planning & Zoning Department reviews, the applicant shall remove 12 by following the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) plan: relocate all vehicular driveway to Northeast 4th Court, reduce the driveway to the minimum allowable standards of 20 feet to 24 feet; reduce the amount of driveway and configure the circulation within the building site; provide a continuous canopy of shade trees along the edge of the curb; see the latest FDOT construction plans for the Biscayne Boulevard improvement plan regarding landscaping. That was number 11. Number 12, the applicant shall modify the plans on file as submitted for the proposed project to eliminate any floor area ratio bonuses requested pursuant to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance for a planned unit development. Number 13, the applicant shall continue to work with the Planning & Zoning Department to reduce the proposed building height along Biscayne Boulevard. Such modification shall be subject to the final review and approval by the Planning & Zoning director. We took that to PAB. The resolution was April 7, 2004. That is for the 2004 version of the project -- Chair Sanchez: Right. Mr. Lavernia: -- and the PAB recommend approval with conditions. The condition B is subject to the removal of conditions 12 and 13 from the development order and more elevation be submitted prior to the City Commission hearing. That is what was presented to the City Commission, and the City Commission adopted with the PAB conditions. We still think that the analysis that we did is valid. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Sir. Mr. Sastre: Yes. Just very briefly. I just wanted to underscore a couple of those things and then ask a couple of follow up. Mr. Lavernia, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that from Planning & Zoning perspective, you all continue to agree that this project should not receive the 20 percent PUD bonus allowing it to become a larger building. Is that fair? Mr. Lavernia: That's not what I said. I read the condition that it should be modified the plans to eliminate the bonus for floor area ratio. Mr. Sastre: Okay. And I -- maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here. Can I ask you to backup to, I think --? I think you were reading from page 6 of 6, and I want to direct you to page 4 of 6 and ask you briefly about that. Do you see page 4 of 6 there? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Mr. Sastre: Okay. There appear to be -- I don't know if those are called findings or if that's part of the analysis of the rationale. What is that portion that I'm kind of relying on in the middle of the page on 4 of 6? What do y'all call that at Planning & Zoning? Mr. Lavernia: Findings. Mr. Sastre: Findings. Okay. So just to reiterate, your finding, which remains valid today, is that the project should not receive the requested 20 percent PUD bonus and that there should be limitations on the height of the development and that the project -- the bonus results in a potentially taller structure that does not contextually fit on the property. Is that a fair recap of the finding? Mr. Lavernia: That's correct. Mr. Sastre: Okay. City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Lavernia: The finding of the Planning Department that conclusions were the conditions that we add at the end. Mr. Sastre: Okay. And -- then the next one, just real quickly, another finding of the Department at that time was that the subject proposal should be modified with respect to height in order to produce a project that is more in character with the context of Biscayne Boulevard as it relates to heights. Is that the finding that was -- and remains valid at this time? Mr. Lavernia: What finding are you reading from? Mr. Sastre: It's immediately below the one that talks about the PUD bonus. It talks about the height of the project and reducing the heights so that it's more in character with the context of Biscayne Boulevard. Do you see that? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Okay. And that's still the finding and the analysis of the Department today? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Can you tell me a little bit -- maybe expound on that a little bit for us what was it about the height of the project that made it not in character or not in context with Biscayne Boulevard as appears to be stated in this finding? Mr. Lavernia: Probably that it was a little higher than the rest of the building that we were reviewing for Biscayne Boulevard. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Do you know, Mr. Lavernia, if, since April 2004, there's been another study of traffic conditions on Biscayne Boulevard? Mr. Lavernia: No, I'm not aware. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Do you know if -- regardless of whether it's a Kubik project or another maybe more recent project, if anyone's analyzed whether the roadway has become more congested as opposed to less congested since the last traffic analysis in this case from the -- Mr. Lavernia: No. Mr. Sastre: -- 2004? Mr. Lavernia: I'm not aware. Mr. Sastre: Okay. The -- strike that. Thank you very much. I don't have anything further. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Counsel, you have eight minutes. Your arguments should be focused on Article 5, 13, and 17, okay? Ms. Dougherty: I have two questions for Mr. Lavernia. When we went before the City Commission and we demonstrated that the bonus -- that the retail on the ground floor, if we closed off the doors to the ground floor and made the retail internal to the building, we would not need a bonus. Do you agree with that? Mr. Lavernia: That was your statement. I believe your statement. I cannot said [sic] until I review the plans and check if -- City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Ms. Dougherty: Do you recall -- Mr. Lavernia: -- what numbers match with the others. Ms. Dougherty: -- if that's one of the reasons that the City Commission granted it? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: Do you recall that? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: Because they wanted to make sure that this was a pedestrian friendly building, correct? Mr. Lavernia: Like the Planning Department wants the same thing too. Ms. Dougherty: And the height of the building -- the bonuses doesn't actually increase the height of the building, is that correct? Mr. Lavernia: I need to review the zoning data. Ms. Dougherty: In other words, you can grant a 20 percent bonus, but it doesn't have to be on the height of the building? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: Okay. Unlike in the DPZ study for Miami 21, when you get a bonus under Miami 21, it automatically goes to the height, correct? Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: But when you get a bonus for -- in 11000, it doesn't necessarily mean the building goes higher. Mr. Lavernia: There are several ways to use that FAR that is not necessarily in height. Ms. Dougherty: Now, would you, as a professional planner, ever think that this project should be limited to 35 feet? Mr. Lavernia: I'm here representing the Planning Department, so you have to ask me a question as to what the Planning Department think. My opinion's not important now. Ms. Dougherty: Well, I'm asking you -- you're a professional planner, and I'm asking your opinion. Ms. Bru: Well, no. I think you're entitled to give an opinion. I mean, you are from the Planning Department and you advise the Commission and that's what you do. You give the Commission opinions as to what you think is appropriate. Mr. Lavernia: Okay. Chair Sanchez: I value your opinion. City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Lavernia: Thank you, sir. Can you repeat your question, Lucia, please? Ms. Dougherty: In your professional opinion as a planner, would you think it's appropriate to limit the height of a building on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard to 35 feet? Mr. Lavernia: No. Ms. Dougherty: I have another question. Did you -- were you -- did the Planning Department give a Class II Permit for 5101 and 5301 on the east side for a 95-foot building? Mr. Lavernia: I don't remember the height, Lucia. We issued a Class II, but I don't remember the height of that building. Ms. Dougherty: Okay. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Counsel, once again, you're recognized for the record. Mr. Sastre: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I just want to recap some things briefly. The 25 criteria that need to be satisfied by the developer under revised 1305.2, want to remind that it is their burden to satisfy each and every one of those criteria, not some of them, not all of them. The issue is not whether it's a nice -looking building or some of these other things that have come up, but really, whether it fully complies with those criteria; and the ones that we have really isolated in our presentation and in looking at Planning & Zoning's findings, which you heard remain completely valid today, deal with (UNINTELLIGIBLE) urban planning, architecture and landscape architecture, and pedestrian orientation, and I'll discuss those in the time I've got remaining. The criteria require that the building respond to the physical contextual environment taking into consideration the urban form and natural features that are there and this is DRC-1(1), and so you have to look at what is existing there, not what, you know, some other project might have been approved at some other time or what would hope to be there, but what is actually there. And what is actually there, you've heard, are two existing bordering -- well, one is directly bordering a historic district, directly bordering the project. Another is one that has been approved and involves Mr. Hernandez Canton's house and is actually pending before the HEP (Historical and Environmental Preservation) Board. There's a 13, 000 page report before the HEP Board on that to get that process going to qualifi, that neighborhood as historic, and then you've got, of course, Morningside, which is, depending upon what numbers you look at, 160 feet or something away. So in looking at what's around there, we don't believe that they have met their burden, not our burden, of demonstrating that it responds to the physical contextual environment as required. And next under design review criteria, 2 -- sub 2 and sub 3, the project's required to respond to the neighborhood context and also create a transition of bulk -- in bulk and scale, and again, we kind of get to the same thing. Well, what is there? What is surrounding this? And everything surrounding this is one to two stories, regardless if it's R-3 and R-5, as Commissioner Winton said back in 2004, we look at what is there now. We don't look at what could be there or if all of those one-story houses, like my client's house, was turned into a 50-foot building. We don't look at it that way. We look at what is there when we examine the neighborhood context. Andl think that's quite apropos. And so I don't believe that this project has done that, is responding to the neighborhood context. The closest thing you could get to saying that it might is the Falls building, which you heard is at least one and a half times the size -- and frankly, I don't think it's got 80 apartments in it. I think that 38 is probably the actual number because the apartments in it are large. It's only ten stories. Andl think it's all kind of designed as penthouses, but probably some of y'all are familiar with that building anyway, but I don't think it's 80. It probably is 38 only, and so this project would be eight or nine times the size with 293 living units in it. The bulk and scale criteria, you know, I think as much as anything, it really comes down to that as well. I mean, I don't know how you get around 293 units, 400-foot wide wall, 150-foot before you start any kind of super structure, any kind of elevator shafts or anything like that, that is enormous and out of context with anything remotely City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 nearby, certainly to the historic districts right there. You know, we can discuss, you know, the human scale, the pedestrian -oriented environment under DRC-3 (2), and you know, responding to the human scale. I think, again -- I mean, you just look at it on its face and this has got no bearing, no relationship to responding to the human scale or to the neighborhood context or any of that. I would also like to note that 1305.3.1, which is part of this whole analysis, talks about the review for adequacy which shall be given in which the proposed use will operate given its specific location and proximity to less intense uses, and it says particular consideration shall be given to protecting the residential areas from excessive noise, fumes, odors, commercial vehicle intrusion, traffic conflicts, spill -over effect of light. You know, again, you know, you've got to look at what is there and what is there is an existing historic district, another one 160 feet away, and one that's on the way and single-family homes in an R-3 district, but single-family homes of one and two stories, and if you look at the conditions and look what they could build there, you know, I think it's just far out of context and not in compliance with this code provision either, and that was 1305.3.1. The -- and I'd like to address one other thing in the short time I've got remaining. This is not a situation where we are not -- not we, but myself, my clients are not wanting development at this site, nor is it, you know, that we would oppose even if a proposed mutual variance -- or something -- I understand there's some limitations on what could be there, but you know, I've spoken with Ms. Dougherty and discussed, you know, whether we would opposed to different uses if -- getting (UNINTELLIGIBLE), the answer is no. I mean, if it's a project that we can come to agreement on -- we had an issue with the mass of this project, the height of this project, the impact that it will have on the boulevard in that area, unlike anything else, unlike the 38-unit, 85- or 90-foot building, which is the closest thing -- remotely close to these neighborhoods for, well you heard, up until the INS building on the corner of 79th Street and Biscayne. So -- Chair Sanchez: In conclusion. You're down to a minute. Mr. Sastre: In conclusion -- and I've been watching our time carefully -- the last provision I want to cite is one I know y'all are familiar with, Section 2301 ofArticle 23, which states emphatically that in their interpretation an application, the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be held to the minimum requirements or maximum limitations, as the case may be, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Again, reiterating that these are not entitlements and you hear it all the time. We're allowed to build 250 feet. We're allowed to do this. We're allowed -- well, you're not. You have to comply with all the provisions. You've got to comply with 2301. You've got to comply with all ofArticle 17, governingMUSPs. You've got to comply with revised 1305.2, which we've discussed, and the PUD bonus, which again, I would urge, is vague to say the least. It's not even a complete sentence, andl think the PUD bonus should be eliminated for that background as well. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: You're welcome. All right. That concludes your presentation. Now we open it up to the public. I have the list of names. We could go through them as I call them up. We'll go with the first -- is itM. Kultin (phonetic)? Is he here? All right. We go to -- Elvis Cruz, two minutes. You've already gave your presentation. Thank you so much. D'amico, Teri D'amico. Yes. Hello. Good afternoon. State your name and address for the records [sic] in two minutes. Terry D'amico: Yes. My name's Terry D'amico. I live in Bay Harbor Island. I'm best known because I coined the term MiMo with one of my associates, Randall Robinson, andl'm here as a designer, an architectural preservationist, andl'm here to represent the buildings that cannot speak for themselves. I don't believe -- I believe you've mislocated density here. High -density buildings are best located in similar buildings, not along a low-rise corridor flanked by low -density residential in historic districts. It's in conflict with your Comprehensive Plan. For example, Goal LU-1 maintain land use that fosters growth and development of the downtown and to protect, enhance the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. I don't think by allowing high -density, high-rise development far outside downtown is consistent with that City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 goal. Also policies HO-115, 127, 117, all state that the City will continue to enforce and, where necessary, strengthen those sections of land development regulations, Zoning ordinances that do not intend to preserve and enhance the general appearance and character of the City's neighborhoods. I'd like to go into the scale. It's completely unreasonable to suggest that this complies with the design review criteria 1305. I'm just going to -- I think an example of this is the fact that they have -- they haven't even brought in a picture, any rendering of their building next to this beautiful, I call it, MiMo diva that's sitting in front of it. Thank you. So we don't have -- they're not giving any evidence of it really being harmonious. I look right here. Here is a -- as I said, this is a MiMo, significant building. What is the relationship here? It's not a transition. It's not smooth. It is extremely severe. There's no respect for this building in front of it whatsoever, as well as the neighborhood. And as far as -- Chair Sanchez: Ma'am. Ms. D'amico: -- the relationship, it's not harmonious. It intrusive and it's exaggerated and uncomfortable with the relationship of the adjacent building. Chair Sanchez: Ma'am, your time is up. Ms. D' amico: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: In conclusion. No, just -- Ms. D'amico: Oh. In conclusion, okay, we need to protect -- Chair Sanchez: Okay. You want to give her your time? Ms. D'amico: -- these one-story MiMo -- Chair Sanchez: You can continue. Ms. D'amico: Thank you. You need to hit -- now consider historic considerations. You're committed to a historic district and right now you have this unique site that you're not paying attention to, is Robert Law Reed. It's connected to this building, so how they can refer to an island not being relating to the buildings next door to it. But MiMo is known for its one- and two-story architectural signage, and if you start putting up buildings this size next to these buildings, we'll never see the light. These buildings must have light against them. They're -- the architecture is creating light and shadows that are exaggerated, that are playful; and if you don't see these architectural features down the boulevard, you might -- there's no architectural significance, so I -- please, you know, this is your opportunity to correct something that was wrong and set a precedence for the rest of the district. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Robert Flanders. Robert Flanders: Good afternoon. I'm Robert Flanders. I live at 720 Palm Bay Lane, Miami, Florida since 1981. I'd like to frame my remarks by saying that everyone here today, we're neighbors and we all share the same interests and that is a better Miami. In our American democracy, we are all appreciative that cities must and do operate fairly, reasonably and honestly under the rule of law. And speaking of our late Commissioner Art Teele, on this dais, he once said -- I heard him -- this body does not play gotcha. We have long been aware that the Kubik project, as proposed, is being built lower than as of right. We're also aware that the Kubik clearly demonstrated a strong desire to accommodate the wishes of the majority of their neighbors; and Kubik, unlike the fast -buck developers, has not folded their tent to move on to greener pastures. They remain committed to the Upper Eastside and the neighbors. Most importantly, Kubik brings abundant parking, desirable retail, commercial and residential where City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 it is needed in an architecturally pleasing envelope that conforms and displays the finest principles ofMiami 21. Kubik is an intelligent, smart growth, pedestrian friendly, mixed -use urban development that would be a credit to any part ofMiami. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. All right, listen. You can't have it in either side. All right. Robert Graboski. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Robert Graboski: Good afternoon. My name is Robert Graboski. I live at 6011 North Bayshore Drive, in Morningside. I'm also principal of Village Architects of Key Biscayne. And I am here to speak in -- as a proponent of the Kubik project. There are a couple things that in the presentations earlier -- in the 5000 block of Biscayne Boulevard, there was a tall building that was not from 48 to the INS, that was demolished, that had plans to be rebuilt as a tall building. That was apparently stopped. So there was another tall building in this area. The photos that were presented showing this very 35-foot high, you know, kind of district also had street parking. US 1, you do not have street parking on US 1. It's a highway. You know, we're talking about buildings abutting a historic district. There is no law that says that you can't build something that doesn't comply with a historic district because it's outside of a historic district. I think this project is compatible with the context that it is in because although you have single-family homes in an R-3, those homes aren't going to be there forever, and you know, if we're talking about a 35-foot height limit, are we going to start chopping the trees down that grow over 35 feet? I don't think so. This is a project on a commercial boulevard and it needs to reflect a commercial atmosphere; and if you try to limit it to 35 feet, like has been said earlier as well, you're going to be looking at a massive parking lot and that's not what we need in this area. We need retail. We need more residents to revitalize Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you so much, sir. Steve Hagan. Steve Hagan: Well, I'm a winner. We get to go home early. Chair Sanchez: You get to go home early. Mr. Hagan. Steve Hagan, 725 Northeast 73rd Street. I recently had the pleasure of spending considerable time in Australia andl was in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. And Sydney, I picked up a brochure. It says "City of Villages." Indeed, that's what that city is. I think that's what any good city should aim to. Well, a village happens to be two or three stories in height. I stayed the first two weeks in a hotel on a park, andl -- on -- from the roof I could have a view. They have a central business district. Every city in Australia, they say CBC. That's the way the signage is and everything else. From my hotel, I could look all around the city andl could see the high-rises in the Central Business District, then they would step down immediately to five or six or eight stories and then in a block or two, right down to two or three. That was two or three stories of retail, two or three stories of business or whatever, homes. We have the opportunity to keep a village atmosphere in the Upper Eastside. That's what the residents want, and so you need to interpret your law and not allow this project. This is a wonderful project in the wrong spot. I mean, comparing this building to things thatl saw in my travels, I love the way it's re -- you know, retail friendly on the -- how it steps back and all of that. Well, it's not just a visual thing that you can't see the top of the building from the sidewalk or from the other side of the street. It's just too much of a building in the entire neighborhood. I don't care whether it's historic neighborhood or what kind of a neighborhood it is. It's too much bulk and mass in a neighborhood that is predominantly one and two stories. We -- it's a built environment. This building belongs downtown. It belongs south of 20th Street where we have incredible amounts of space -- Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Hagan. -- for this type of construction. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Thank you. All right. Is it Herta Colly or Holly? I'm sorry. Is it Colly? Herta Holly: Holly. Chair Sanchez: Holly. Commissioner Sarnoff. Or you could call her mayor, if you'd like. Chair Sanchez: Huh? Commissioner Sarnoff. You could call her mayor, if you'd like. Ms. Holly: Good afternoon. My name is Herta Holly. I live in Miami Shores. I'm mayor of Miami Shores, but I live at 9616 Northeast 5th Avenue Road. I'm here representing Dr. Joan Lutton at the Cushman School. I've worked at the Cushman School for over 15 years, grew up in the City ofMiami; certainly lived here for over 50 years in our area. I have watched the growth of our city, the City ofMiami, as it's come down Brickell and is moving and the buildings that are there, andl obviously live in Miami Shores and I've been watching for a long time what's been happening along Biscayne Boulevard. We at the Cushman School -- and I'm speaking again on behalf of the head of the school, Dr. Joan Lutton -- feel that Kubik would be a wonderful neighbor for us. The Cushman School has been at this site since 1924, and obviously, any of you who have been in our community realize the changes that we have seen in that particular area over these past years. And again, we are delighted to see construction coming, people coming, residential, as well as businesses and, as part of the school, we are delighted to have Kubik as a neighbor. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you, Mayor. And I apologize; I did not recognize you. Ms. Holly: That's no problem at all. Chair Sanchez: Welcome to City Hall. Always a pleasure. Ms. Holly: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Next speaker. Luis Herrera. All right. Next speaker, Carol Ann Hollum (phonetic)? They here? Carol Ann. Gone. All right. Michael Carl. Good afternoon, sir. Michael Carl: I'm Dr. Michael Carl, living in Morningside, 570 Northeast 57th Street. I'm here to speak out against the project. I'm living there for the last eight years. I'm living in a building which was built in 1941 and to my family andl, as a de facto second owners of this building has been well preserved andl consider it a privilege to live in Morningside; it's a jewel. And whatl don't understand is that in the past, other neighborhoods have been sacrificed for the commercial interest. In other words, my property, which I bought, will be diminished in the shadow of a huge building, which doesn't allow me to breeze freely anymore. I have been here in this chamber and as much as I like Mark Soyka as a neighbor, where he stated -- and I'm eyewitness and ear witness to it -- I have bought this property andl have promised the owners of the Miami Women's Club that this building will not be demolished, and what I see right now when I'm driving by is an empty lot. A number was given -- well, we will move this building for, I don't know, $75, 000, and then later on was said, well, I'm sorry. It's not enough money to move the building, so let's demolish it. There were two low-rise apartment buildings sitting on this block, which it's the owner's responsibility to make sure that no crime is coming out of this building, but this has been demolished. It's an empty lot right now where one could have had apartment space or -- for low-income residents ofMiami, which has been missed opportunity. City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 It's an empty lot and it's a disgrace right now, what is sitting there driving by there everyday. And now an example. Chair Sanchez: Sir, your time is up. In conclusion. Mr. Carl: Can I get two minutes from someone? Okay. And now we have to listen very carefully so you don't misquote me right now. A tin can, which is painted by Andy Warhol, I can put it into the museum. A tin can, which I'm throwing into the Everglades, is pollution. Your building, what you are showing here, is a wonderful structure, but as many other people would say, it's in the wrong place. It's not an island. And what I call it it is a visual pollution, a visual pollution for these historic districts. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Paul Mann. Paul Mann: Paul Mann, at 1665 Southwest 23rd Street, in Miami. I'm here to speak against the project. It is a nice project, but it is in the wrong place. I've just recently started going up to the MiMo area on a regular basis just to enjoy the area, the restaurants, and what's nice about it is the low-rise atmosphere that it has. This project will change that atmosphere without a doubt. You can't argue against that. If you want to open the door to urbanizing that area, this is the way to do it. If you want to keep that area the way it is, low-rise and with character, then this project needs to be denied. It's a beautiful project that belongs downtown, not in a low-rise neighborhood. Thank you very much. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Paul Murphy. Next up, Bob Powers. Paul Murphy: Okay. Paul Murphy. I'm just going to make a few comments, although I'm an owner of the property in conjunction with Mr. Alvarado. I'm going to speak to the fact that I pulled the building permit as the general contractor. I just like to make it known that we worked extensively with Planning & Zoning during the pulling of the building permit. We modified the plans extensively in conjunction with the Planning & Zoning Department. We reduced some of the units in the building. We reduced the square footage and we made it more friendly all the way around. So number 2, when they talked about the Women's Club, we spent almost a year and a half trying to move the Women's Club in conjunction with the City ofMiami. We were willing to pay any amount of money to move the Women's Club to wherever the City ofMiami wanted it. The City ofMiami finally rejected it because they had no place to put the Women's Club, so it was not our choice. We were willing to move the property. And the units that were knocked down on our property were asked by us by the police department and members of the City ofMiami to take it down because we had extensive crime and prostitution in those units, and I think most of the people in the area thanked us for doing so. Thanks. Chair Sanchez: Bob Powers. No. Fran Rollason. Frances Rollason: It's Fran Rollason. I live at 686 Northeast 74th Street, and I'm president of the Biscayne MiMo Association, andl want to just clarify the fact that our members have voted for a 53-foot height limit on the boulevard; and we want to see the boulevard revitalized; and we don't think that it'll happen with a 35-foot across the board. And l just want to let you know where we stand. Chair Sanchez: All right. Thank you. Next speaker, Arthur Marcus, you're -- Arthur, you spoke already? Wasn't he the --? Yeah, he was the architect. Brian Patel followed by Henry Patel. Brian Patel: Hi. My name is Brian Patel, 6150 Biscayne Boulevard. I'm a resident, business owner, and have a family raising on the Biscayne Boulevard not east, not west, not in the neighborhood, not anywhere else; on the boulevard for 25 years. I have seen nothing but bad, bad, bad, bad, and bad things on the boulevard. This is the first ray of hope for the boulevard. City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 MiMo starts on the 5th -- from the 50th Street to 78th Street. This project is located on 54, 55 Street. This will be a great entrance through the MiMo Boulevard. Biscayne Boulevard is a gateway to the downtown Miami. This is the only building have seen developing or coming into development in the -- on the Biscayne Boulevard from 79th Street to 54th Street. I think this is a great project. We should go for it. Andl will be very -- I'll be happy if this project comes in. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you, sir. All right. Henry Patel. Henry Patel: My name is Henry Patel, the owner of King Motel, located at 7150 Biscayne, and the president of Upper Eastside Miami Council. For the record, also it was unanimously voted that Upper Eastside Miami Council is for 55 -- 53 to 55 feet on the Biscayne Boulevard because 35/50 feet is not financially viable. There are people here I heard talking; some of them live in Bal Harbor, some live in Southwest 24th Street, and some might be coming from Boca Raton, but actual stakeholders are us. We own property on boulevard, and we are the -- for some people it's a issue of lifestyle; for us it's a livelihood, and people made investment -- livelihood and reality has to meet somewhere. Some people made investment based on -- everybody make their living by being profession, by realtor, being an engineer, or contractor, but this is an issue of livelihood. Andl have reached out to many neighbors who are literally stuck up with 35 feet to make a live -and -let -live compromise, but they are not in a position to even make a compromise, and that is very, very annoying to me as a person being on the boulevard 21 years. I can tell you, Miami Police Department, there are people in the City know I have worked my rear end off to clean up the boulevard. Many police department people know what I have done on the boulevard, but when it comes down where we have to be heard -- the historic district was voted and slammed on the business owners in one and a half month and this project has been heard 53 times. That shows how much of the business owners have voice in this. Only six weeks, forty blocks of business owners, they've been working on the historic district in just six weeks, and that's our livelihood. My kids went on the boulevard to clean up the whole boulevard with the police picking up the needles and picking up the used rubbers on the boulevard. That's what commitment we bring as family owners. We have to be heard. We have to have an opportunity to go; otherwise, you'll see more empty lots on the Biscayne Boulevard, which will be very deterioration for the growth of the area. And I'm proud that somebody's ready to spend money in this downtown of economic. Thank you very much. Chair Sanchez: Thank you, Henry. There are no clapping. All right. Mark Soyka. Mark Soyka: Hi. Chair Sanchez: Hi. Mr. Soyka: Mark Soyka. Chair Sanchez: All right. Let's -- folks, let's stick to the issue on the agenda, which is Kubik, not the 35 feet, okay? So -- Mr. Soyka: I'm Mark Soyka, 601 Northeast 57th Street. I am both a resident of the area for almost 20 years and a business owner. And I've heard everybody, andl guess if it's going to be down to a decision based upon the exact height or laws or inches, I guess we're going to be sitting -- I've been here four years on this project, and just to clarify one thing. I have nothing to do with the project. People ask me when I'm going to develop. I'm a neighbor. I'm part of the neighborhood. The project is in my face, both residentially and commercially, butt have nothing to do with the project. To correct my neighbor before, I didn't promise the Women [sic] Club thatl will never demolish or not demolish the building. I promised them, when they sold me the property, for the sake of obtaining parking which they had that for the rest of their lives and anybody that's in this club or Women's Club, I will accommodate them and feed them their -- not feed them; they're not people that need food -- accommodate them, to congregate and City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 maintain the Women's Club; and they are actually in support of everything that's been done. I really want to put it in a different perspective. The boulevard itself, it starts in Key West. It doesn't stop somewhere in -- it goes all the way in Canada. And US 1 changes faces every 20 miles, every 10 miles, every 5 blocks it changes. Chair Sanchez: In conclusion. Mr. Soyka: I can't. I need somebody else's two minutes. It's important. Chair Sanchez: Anybody want to give -- Bob, all right. Mr. Soyka: I'm looking at it really realistically. The portion of the boulevard, people don't maybe see the fact that very few developments on the boulevard can end up being like Kubik. The restrictions from the City in addition to the size of the properties that are available, empty lots, can never accommodate a size development of Kubik. Kubik is this unique architectural masterpiece that can sit there and shine a light, not literally, to the area which is we consider the corridor, 36 Street to 79th Street. The bank that doesn't have a place to go and all those wonderful things that we, as a community need can be housed in a place like -- a project like Kubik. We are in an urban city. If you go to Europe, you go to Australia, you go anywhere you want, you have the wonderful residential communities; some of them call them town houses, some of them call them little villages, and they're sitting right bordering wonderful high-rises, low -rises. Right there in Coconut Grove, a wonderful village. Look at your high-rises. They're sitting across from the bay, next to a residential. I'm not for development of Biscayne to a canyon of high-rises. If you understand Biscayne, there's a certain reality. This project is a serious, serious addition to the neighborhood. It will not take away from anybody; it will help. Andl don't think that it will be proper for us -- andl don't know how the system works -- to spend another two, three, four, five, six years talking about it. Something will happen on this property, and we have a chance to make a very beautiful project happen; and I'm in support of it. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Grace Solares. Grace Solares: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Thankyou, Commissioners. Grace Solares, president ofMiami Neighborhoods United. Commissioners, Miami Neighborhoods United passed a resolution supportingMorningside's opposition to this product -- project for very good reason. Kubik represents a perfect storm of overdevelopment by taking advantage of several glaring faults in our Zoning Code. Number one, limitless lot aggregation. Miami currently has no maximum on lot aggregation, and the Kubik developer has put together ten separate platted lots, the entire block, for this proposal. Miami 21 originally proposed a maximum of 40,000 square feet. Kubik has over four times this maximum. Number two, gross lot area. The Kubik property has 97,000 square feet of net lot, but the -- with the gross lot area, which is you count half of the way into the street, they have 183,000 square feet for the building calculation. Number three, bonuses. They received a PUD bonus, an additional 63,000 square feet even though it was recommended against it by your Planning Department. Number four, cumulative zoning. Our Zoning Code has another terrible flaw, cumulative inclusion zoning, which means that if a property is zoned to allow even a single story or office commercial use, it is also zoned to high -density, high-rise residential. A compromise exists. Build high-rises downtown and protect our neighborhoods. Kubik was one of the many projects that inspiredMNU to come together in 2004 to protect Miami neighborhoods from overdevelopment such as this. This proposed building has -- Chair Sanchez: Time. Ms. Solares: -- a hundred -- City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Excuse me. Judy, do you want to give her your time? Ms. Solares: I just have 15 seconds to close for you. Chair Sanchez: Fifty seconds? Ms. Solares: Fifteen seconds. Chair Sanchez: Okay, go ahead. Ms. Solares: This proposed building has 150 -- it's 150 feet tall, 400 feet wide; in the middle of a predominately two-story historic district across the street from another two-story historic district, a single-family home, and violates all the neighborhood protections in Section 1305.2 and the Comprehensive Plans [sic]. We urged you, this Commission, to apply the same remedy you did with three previous proposed high-rises in the MiMo district. Please limit the Kubik project to 35 feet. Thank you, Commissioners. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Next speaker. Ms. Solares: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: Judy Sandoval. Next speaker, Iris Verdile (phonetic)? Is that --? Judith Sandoval: Did you say my name? Chair Sanchez: Yes, ma'am. Are you -- you want to speak or not? Ms. Sandoval: Yes. Chair Sanchez: Okay. All right. Iris. Is Iris here? Ms. Sandoval: Judy Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. I live in a neighborhood where what's proposed to happen to Morningside with this Kubik building has been happening in my neighborhood, and it -- all along Coral Way, all along 27th Avenue. The buildings are not as big, but they're eight, sixteen, twenty-one stories, and higher on Coral Way. They are extremely offensive to our historic residential neighborhood of mostly one-story houses. And the first one set a precedent so that when the others came, they said, oh, well, that developer could do it, so we should be allowed to do the same thing. This will happen to Morningside if you let this building go through. I advise against it. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Next speaker, Janet Vukovic. Janet? I'll spell the last name. It's V-U-K-O-V-I-C, I believe. All right. Jack Wolfe. Jack Wolfe: Hi. My name is Jack Wolfe, resident at 492 Northeast 57th Street, in Morningside. I'm a second -generation Miami native. I have a three -year -old son who is a third -generation Miami native. Other than Mr. Canton, I live the closest to this building. I've been in Morningside -- owned that home -- the home since 1995. It's literally less than 300 feet from my front door. My issue with this building -- and I've only been invited to one of the meetings, so I'm not really sure where the 15 -- where the 50 meetings happened, but -- is about parking, and the parking in the area -- andl know Commissioner Sanchez has spoken about this, as well as Commissioners Sarnoff and Spence -Jones. What we have in that area in the last couple of years is a huge parking issue with the success of the whole 55th Street Station to the point where on 56th Street, which is directly the street behind my street, you have folks parking cars within the neighborhood and literally running across Biscayne Boulevard because there just isn't enough safe parking on the other side of the street. Also, I wanted to -- I know I only have two minutes, City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 but the -- on April 4, the City -- Miami Parking Authority paid Tim Haas, engineers, architects, for the parking study. Are you all familiar with that parking study? In the parking study -- and I can submit the final draft, which is dated April 4 -- it literally talks about -- on page 10 it names this project. I'm sorry, page 8. It names this project. It calls for -- it says the project has 293 units, 33,000 square feet of retail space, but only 362 parking spaces. That's not even two parking spaces per resident, much less the retail. I'd also like to state for the record the Flats building, which is directly adjacent to my house on 57th Street, is 36 residential units and two commercial spaces in front. So my street, since that apartment building went condo, has always had a problem with the street parking; and this parking issue is not going to get any better regardless of whether or not this building is reduced in size or scope. It needs more spaces regard -- you know, even if it's reduced in number of units, it's still -- it -- the parking isn't there. Chair Sanchez: Sir, are you --? In conclusion, sir. You've already had --? Mr. Wolfe: In conclusion, I'd like to ask the Commission to deny this application until they've reviewed the parking issue, reviewed this document in its final format. This final draft was dated -- is dated April 4, andl really don't -- I mean, no one's ever been able to answer my question, whether this has even been addressed. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. Ryan York. Is it Ryan York? Ryan. Ryan York, and then Frances Jackson and guess that'll do it, and we'll close the public hearing. Frances, you're the last speaker. Frances Jackson: Hello. My name is Frances -- Chair Sanchez: Good afternoon. Ms. Jackson: -- Jackson. I reside at 634 Northeast 57th Street. I have lived in Morningside off and on since 1956, and it is a special neighborhood and it is [sic] been kept a special neighborhood because we have fought so hard to keep it a special neighborhood. I live three very long blocks and across the boulevard from where the Falls and the new Kubik would be. I can see Morningside Flats from my bedroom window. I have a single-family home. Kubik will be, again, half again as large, will dominate my whole window three, four blocks away from the building. Now some of the comments that have been made in this, I just wanted to address because the fact that somebody can come up and say that those single-family homes that are right across from Kubik will not always been there -- will be there. Well, they've been there longer than most of the residents have been there. They've been there since the 1920s, the 1930s; hopefully, they will remain there for a long, long time. Also, I have friends who live near the Coral Seas. When they built the building, the neighborhood had to go out and get residential parking stickers for three blocks around because they could no longer park in front of their houses. Parking from the Coral Seas residents and visitors took it all up. I have friends that live four blocks away. They don't have the residential stickers, so they can't park in front of their house. The lights from the building from the top shine through their houses in their windows; the noise from the building once it opened, they had to call police several times just in the first months. So, yes, all these things impact the neighborhoods. Do we need development? Of course. Is commercial and residential the preferred use? Of course. But something as massive as a battleship is too large for the neighborhood. Chair Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Jackson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Last speaker, Eric Silverman, and that'll be the last speaker; and we'll close the public hearing. City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Eric Silverman: Thank you. Eric Silverman, 7301 Biscayne Boulevard, the Vagabond. I'm here today to support the Kubik. I think that it's one of the projects that together with what Mark has done at Soyka's and what's happened at that 55th Street Station will be a great contribution to the neighborhood. The issue that was brought up by Mr. Wolfe and others about parking, I think, does work back into the 35-foot height limitation. These empty lots that we have on the boulevard, how they're going to be used, and how they're going to contribute to really make the MiMo area world -class and to offer the services and to be able to bring banks and other large institutions into the area to service the community is going to be very important. So I strongly ask that you consider passing Kubik and look in the future for empty lots to contribute parking into the MiMo district. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Thank you. All right. The public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. Before we do that, counsel, you want to add anything? Ms. Dougherty: I just have a letter written by Shane Graber that I'd like to put in the record, and it says this serves as my letter of support for the previously -approved Kubik project as slated for the Palm Grove Upper Eastside Miami neighborhood. I was a president of the Bayside Residents Association, which spans from 62nd to 72nd Streets, east of Biscayne Boulevard, from 2001 to 2005. During my term, neighborhood residents voted overwhelmingly to support the Kubik project. For the same reasons, the neighborhood supported Kubik then, I support the project today. The Kubik developers proposed a building that was much lower than allowed at the time of the application and the height that would be most likely be allowed as part of the -- under the new 20 -- Miami 21 transect program due to the unique character and relationship to the surrounding properties. The project brings needed ground -level retail to the Upper Eastside in one of the few areas that can accommodate it. The Miami 21 plan calls these special areas of interest transects. The Kubik site is located in one of those transect areas, and it's a welcome true mixed -use activity. On alls -- alls [sic] on -site parking is hidden from public view and additional on -street parking spaces are located on Northeast 4th Court and it's ample and underutilized. The street could use pedestrian activities, especially at night. Again, it's Miami 21 compliant. This project will bring an architecturally, noteworthy landmark building, a new historic structure. Unlike other Upper Eastside proposed projects, Kubik is not directly adjacent to R-1 or R-2 residences. It's surrounded by multifamily, medium density, residential district, warehouses, railroad tracks, two federal highways, the commercial district, and again, this is a unique transectional -- transect location. In Bayside, we share our neighborhood with four mid -rise and high-rise complexes, Palm Bay Yacht Club, Palm Bay Tower, Palm Bay Condo, the Clipper, as well as the Palm Bay Marina. These dense and high projects do not reduce our quality of life or our single-family home property values. In fact, they've helped us bring a needed mix of uses and demographics to our neighborhood. The Kubik developers have made ample changes to their plans. The opponents, for which I believe are a few, are very vociferous, have not made any concessions, and this is not reasonably [sic] behavior. In addition to serving as the president of the Bayside Residents Association for four years, I also serve on the City of Miami Nuisance Abatement Board, served on director of the Upper Eastside Miami Council, and a member and a property owner of Palm Bay Neighborhood Association where Kubik stands, andl work for Bacardi USA in the headquarters in Miami. In other words, I live, work, and play in the immediate area surrounding Kubik, andl deeply care about my neighborhood. Signed Shane Graber. Chair Sanchez: All right. At this time it comes to the Commission for deliberation. Before we discuss the item, I will entertain -- I welcome a motion to either approve or deny. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'll do a motion to approve with conditions. I'll cite those conditions at the close of my comments. Chair Sanchez: All right. City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll second the motion. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion to approve with conditions, which he'll state on the record. Commissioner Sarnoff. Correct. Chair Sanchez: There is a second by Commissioner Gonzalez. Let's hear the conditions. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I'd like to go through the discussion before I go through the conditions. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Discussion on the item. Commissioner Sarnoff. First place, Madam City Attorney, I have never been provided with the previous hearing, andl will not make a decision predicated upon anything that was heard previous to this Commission. For counsel to get up here and say I want the Commissioners to consider everything that was said in the previous four or five hours of testimony is not only ludicrous, it's unfair, and it should never have been allowed to even be thought of by any of the Commissioners. I suspect, though most of you or all of you have been here before, you may not have instant recall of your previous two meetings on this. So I want the record to reflect, I will not be considering anything said other than what's been presented here today. Ms. Bru: Well, I think, Commissioner, that, in fact, this is a denovo hearing. This is before you as if this was the very first time that it's before you, and it would be inappropriate to consider anything that's not in the record or testimony that you heard here today. And by the record, I mean what has been submitted to you as part of this agenda package. Commissioner Sarnoff. With that understood, then I'll go on. You know, for anyone to use the term US 1 or highway demonstrates a patent disrespect and a patent misunderstanding of Upper Eastside. For those of you that think it's US 1 and think it goes from Maine down to Key West, it's not your neighborhood. And those who live in the Upper Eastside love their neighborhood and they never refer to it as US 1. They refer to it as Biscayne Boulevard, and they refer to it as their boulevard. And you have MiMo now, which is in its infancy stages of a historic neighborhood designation and to its credit, to the credit of Fran Rollason and to the credit of everyone involved, Bob Powers, it has taken not just baby steps, but large steps. So do you disregard the context of MiMo? Do you just throw it out because somebody had something that they say 150 feet? Well, I say it's 120 feet. Biscayne Boulevard, I could tell you for the record, is 80 feet. I could tell you that's a 33-percent overstatement by Dean Lewis. I could tell you that his Cube of Light fails by one third if, in fact, Biscayne Boulevard is 80 feet and it is, in fact, 80 feet. I had my office check. So I want to do something that's right for the neighborhood, andl want to do something that's in context for the neighborhood. Andl want to thank Mark Soyka, Brian Patel, Henry Patel, Paul Murphy, Fran Rollason, Paul Mann, Dr. Michael Carl, the Mayor ofMiami Shores, Steve Hagan, Robert Cranky [sic], Bob Flowers -- Flanders -- excuse me, Bob -- and Terry D'amico, Grace Solares, Judy Sandoval, Jack Wolfe, Francis Jackson, and Eric Silverman for providing their thoughts and their input. And obviously, this is a democracy and we don't all agree. We all agree where we want to get to. We all agree we want to have a great neighborhood. It's just how you get to that great neighborhood that we all differ. Everybody wants happiness, but what -- one man's happiness is another man's unhappiness. So what you do is you elect somebody. You elect somebody to hopefully represent what you think your desires are and then you allow them to exhibit a little bit of leadership. And l just don't believe that this massing of this project is in context with what I call in a very good way the perfect storm of three historic neighborhoods. You have Morningside, which is the oldest historic neighborhood in all ofMiami. You have MiMo at its very infancy stages of a neighborhood and of a great district. You have Palm Grove, which I'm looking at a February 2008 report prepared by Thomas and Associates for Palm Grove, which unfortunately was only City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 given to my office on May of this year. That's a very slow interoffice mail, I must admit, four months. And you'll see that the neighborhood directly to the north of this particular building -- so looking to my right, that particular neighborhood has 548 buildings, and by the way, just because it is zoned R-3, there is no high-rise within that neighborhood. It is solely and exclusively within two blocks of this single-family homes, but there are 548 buildings and 68 empty lots, and according to this consultant, 353 of these properties should be considered contributing properties to this historic district. So you can take something completely out of context and you could place it on the boulevard and you can say, well, it's got an angle of setback and it's got an angle of this, but you cannot take away the fact that it is 151 feet. You cannot take away the fact that it is a massing of over 400,000 square feet. And to say in context that it belongs -- because there's a ten -story building directly to the east of it, a building that is built illegally, and the only way the City gave it a TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) was for it to acquire lots directly to the east of the -- that unit. So you can continue to approve things and then you say to yourself when do you stop putting the camel's nose in the tent? At what point do you say, you know what? This is the last large project in the 50th block of Biscayne Boulevard? Well, you can't do that because once you let one in, you have to let another one in. And once you let the other one in, you have to let another one in, and there are quite a few buildings and there are quite a few empty lots on Biscayne Boulevard that can still be accumulated and they'll use Kubik as the reason or as the motivation for saying "Under a 1305 analysis, it is context with the neighborhood." Now, our own Planning Department wrote and still ascribes to the following -- this is its finding -- it is found that the PUD approval represents a bonus increase in floor area ratio. This bonus, in conjunction with the facts that this is a very large site, has a cumulative effect of allowing an extremely large amount of potential development on this site. In a recent study of the Biscayne Boulevard corridor, recommendations were made that limitations be placed on the height of the development. The requested bonus results in a potentially taller structure that does not contextually fit on this specific property. Therefore, it is found that with respect to these recommendations, the subject proposal should be modified to eliminate -- says eliminate -- the requested PUD bonuses. The reduction will result in a more compatible amount of development capacity on the subject property. They didn't stop there. They also said it is found thus it is a finding, that since the completion of the recent Biscayne Boulevard corridor study, concern has risen over the potential negative effect of building height immediately adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard. The subject proposal should be modified with respect to the height in order to produce a project that is more in context with the character of the Biscayne Boulevard as it relates to height. And as this Commission knows, on page 6 of 6, they put two criteria -- two recommendations, 12 and 13, that they modn5, the plans, as submitted, to eliminate the floor area ratio; number 13, that the applicant shall continue to work with the Planning & Zoning Department to reduce the proposed height along Biscayne Boulevard. Such modifications shall be subject to the final review of the Planning & Zoning director. So under 1305 analysis, this particular building, as it is been presented to this Commission today, is not -- does not respond to the physical contextual environment taking into consideration the urban form and natural features of the surrounding neighborhood. It simply doesn't respond to the neighborhood in context, and the context is a low-rise, one-, two-, and three-story buildings all around with the exception of the illegal building directly to its east, and it does not create a transition in bulk and scale. And if you just look at the project directly and if you look at the Andiamo building, which was probably the catalyst for the MiMo district, you will see a wall directly in front of it, and that wall has a straight scape directly up top that I think any mountain climber would love to climb. It is not a transition to scale. So what I'm going to do is as follows. I'm going to move to approve the Major Use Special Permit as submitted with modifications, conditions, and safeguards after giving full consideration to all recommendations, evidence, and testimony, including the recommendations of the Planning Department finding that the development would be in conformity with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Plan and the development complies with this district zoning classification. My motion to approve with modifications is based on the public welfare being served by the proposed development, the applicant demonstrating compliance with most criteria of Section 1305 in consideration of the applicable standards and criteria in Section City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 1305 of the City Code, except as follows: The development complies with the applicable criteria set forth in 1305, I therefore move to approve the MUSP with the following modifications. As to site and urban planning, subsection 1, as to architect and land -- architecture and landscape -- as to Section 2, architecture and landscape architecture, I believe that the building must be reduced to 35 feet. And that is my motion. Chair Sanchez: All right. The maker -- the -- you second the motion? Commissioner Gonzalez: I'm going to withdraw my second -- Chair Sanchez: Okay. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- under the 35 feet. Chair Sanchez: Is there a second to the 35 feet? Commissioner Regalado: I'll second it. Chair Sanchez: Okay. I -- you made a motion as amended to approve with the restriction of 35 feet. Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chair Sanchez? Chair Sanchez: No. Ms. Thompson: Then the motion fails. We have a 2/2. Chair Sanchez: All right. Can we entertain another motion? All right. So what -- we're going to need another Commissioner possibly to break this tie. Commissioner Gonzalez: That was going to be my suggestion -- Chair Sanchez: So -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- that we had a full Commission voting on the item, and as we have done before in many other items, we should not hear anymore testimony. We should, once we have a full Commission, just vote on the item. If the Commissioner -- I know the Commissioner hasn't been present, but she should be provided with the video and the transcript of the entire meeting. Let her familiarize with it, and then let her vote on the item. Chair Sanchez: All right. So the recommendation is to basically not vote on the issue today, bring it back just for a vote -- we've heard testimony, we've heard input, allowing us the opportunity to study the issue, gather our thoughts on it, and possibly have a full Commission to City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 vote on the item. Ms. Bru: So you're going to continue the item to the next P&Z meeting? Chair Sanchez: No matter what happens, we have a tie. I mean, I'm prepared to make a motion to see if we break a tie, but don't think we have it, so why continue to debate this --? So we need a motion to -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Motion to continue. Chair Sanchez: -- continue just for the vote. Just to vote, folks. No more public input, no more testimony; just to vote. All right. Need a motion. There's a -- need a second. Need a second to continue. If not, all right. Then we need a motion. I'm going to pass the gavel and make a motion to approve PZ.1. Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. All in -- Chair Sanchez: No, no. Roll call. Commissioner Sarnoff. Do it by roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chair Sanchez? Chair Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: And then Commissioner Sarnoff? Commissioner Sarnoff. No. Chair Sanchez: All right. Ms. Thompson: You still have a 2/2 tie. Chair Sanchez: They want to continue to waste -- so we need a motion to -- or get the Commissioner here, folks. I mean, one or the other. We need a motion to continue. We need to continue. We don't have a vote. It's a 2/2 tie. Either way it dies. Commissioner Regalado: Unless the maker wants to change the motion. Chair Sanchez: Well, I -- you know, that's up to the maker of the motion. I don't -- I can't speak for anyone here but myself. Commissioner? Let me see ifI could convince you on the issue, if you would allow me. I think we have to make our decisions here based on compatible [sic] substantial evidence. I know of no other project who has navigated the legal channels such as this project, Kubik. I think you said it best when you said that everyone wants a great neighborhood, but how do we get there? Andl know that we may have a fundamental difference City of Miami Page 107 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 of opinion on this issue, but based on this project, which has been in the making for five years, you focus on the area that you represent; and I think that today, I think what the attorney needed to do, the attorney on the other side, needed to convince me that the City was not in compliance with 1305. I believe he failed to do that. Based on his arguments, he failed to do that. Now, we could continue to not make decisions as to what's happening in the Upper Eastside, but let me tell you, it is a diamond in the rough. A lot of great things are happening up there. Andl go up there a lot because I like the place. It breaks me away from the Grove. It breaks me away from Little Havana. And it allows me an opportunity to go up there and meet some interesting people, folks. And the place is coming around, but it is at a snail pace. And if you don't open the doors for smart growth, not overdevelopment -- I don't think this project is overdevelopment, but if you open the door for smart growth in that area, believe me, what could take you twenty years, you could accomplish in three to five years. It has a lot of potential. Okay. I look at it andl take the information as I gather here andl take a lot of notes. The bonuses was issued here was a compromise to allow it to have retail, to have pedestrian friendly. If you don't have that element, man, you got nothing. You got a place where people are going to live, but people aren't going to walk, and Biscayne Boulevard, whether it goes from the Keys to Canada, nobody's going to walk from the Keys to Canada, but I guarantee you, the people that live there are going to walk their neighborhood and right now, folks, what's there, people are scared to walk. And it's a perception problem. And it's buildings like this, which won an award, that I think will be able to attract people to the area. People are going to live there, they're going to work there, and they're going to play there. So this thing about the 35 feet, I think that's a battle for another day. I think today is the beginning of us an opportunity to say what is the path that we want? I know we have a difference of opinion andl respect you for it, but today is the day that we cannot continue to send that message because believe me, once you do this, you'll have an after -affect on the decision that we make. Right now we have a bad reputation in certain areas of the City. I certainly don't want to give it on that area that you're not willing to entertain good, smart development. Surrounding properties, there's no R-1. There isn't a property that I think that's going to be affected -- as they say, you know, a building next to a house -- the scale, ifI looked at it -- andl went out there andl looked at the area because before I vote on an issue, I like to educate myself. Ladies and gentlemen, what you have out there is an eyesore. It's an eyesore to your community. And you could have great mansions in Morningside. You could have great homes throughout the entire community, but when people drive Biscayne Boulevard, you know what they say? I wouldn't come out here to shop. I wouldn't come out here to eat. I wouldn't come out here to walk my children or my dog. And that's the perception that we have to change. And it's about leadership. So I know we don't have the votes today, but I think that you're in a position that you can do greatness for that community. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I think -- Chair Sanchez: Ball's in your court. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- you've been out to the Green Market, andl think you've been out to certain sections of the boulevard, andl think the boulevard is coming back. The question is your vision for the boulevard, how do you see it? And see it in historical context. But understand. Chair Sanchez: So if you're not prepared to make a motion, then I would respectfully request, since we have a voluminous agenda, that somebody make a motion so we could bring it back for a vote and see if we have a tie breaker or not. Commissioner Sarnoff. What is the result, Madam City Attorney, of a tie? Commissioner Gonzalez: I already made the motion to continue for the next PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting. Commissioner Sarnoff. I just want to hear from the City Attorney. What's the result of a tie City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 vote? Ms. Bru: A tie vote means no action. Chair Sanchez: No action. Ms. Bru: The status quo remains. There was no action take on the application for this Major Use Special Permit. Commissioner Sarnoff. And it just continues on or what happens to it? Ms. Bru: Well, it's -- then it would be up to the applicant, whether they want to bring it back or not -- Chair Sanchez: It dies. Ms. Bru: -- before you. Commissioner Gonzalez: Maybe we should call three judges to render a decision on it, you know. After all -- Ms. Dougherty: May I just -- Chair Sanchez: No vote here. It -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- judges are getting accustomed to run the City ofMiami instead of Commissioners, so you know. Ms. Dougherty: I may suggest something to you. At some point you're going to have to take a vote and you can only take a vote with three members or a majority. Because there was a remand from the court to direct you to make a decision, so you know, if there isn't a decision today, I think automatically it has to be continued because that's what the court told you to do. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: Correct. Chair Sanchez: It's time to fish or cut bait, folks. Commissioner Sarnoff. All right. Then I'll make a motion to continue. Chair Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second to continue -- no discussion on it -- for a vote. A vote from this legislative body, and that's it. Okay. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Ms. Thompson: I apologize. I didn't hear who was your seconder? Chair Sanchez: The seconder was Commissioner Gonzalez. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the date will be -- let's get a date. It'll be the City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 first item in the morning so we could get it out of the way. Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Chair Sanchez: So let's pick a date. Ms. Thompson: Your next P&Z meeting is June 26. Chair Sanchez: June 26, first item in the morning for a vote. All right. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: Does the maker of the motion and the seconder accept that? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yes. Chair Sanchez: All right. So it is. Ladies and gentlemen, have a good -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman -- Chair Sanchez: -- evening. I cannot live on M&Ms alone, so we're going to break for lunch. PZ.2 08-00170x RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING THE APPEAL, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 6, SECTION 620.4(5), TO ALLOW A BAR, SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3215 NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 08-00170x Analysis.PDF 08-00170x Zoning Map.pdf 08-00170x Aerial Map.pdf 08-00170x Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 08-00170x ZB Reso.PDF 08-00170x CC Original Submittal of Plans.pdf 08-00170x CC Updated Submittal of Plans.pdf 08-00170x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 08-00170x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 08-00170x Exhibit A.pdf 08-00170x CC Fact Sheet.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones R-08-0291 City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 help; not all the time, but sometimes we do help them out. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.2 is an appeal, so the applicant needs to -- Chair Sanchez: All right. This is an appeal. Lucia Dougherty: Yes, sir. I'm here on behalf of Vlada Valentine Von Shats, who would like to open a Russia Vodka -- Russian Vodka Room at 32 and 2nd Avenue. It's in a shopping center. It's across the street from the sale center of Midtown. We have recommendations of approval. We can make a full presentation, if that is something that you desire. Chair Sanchez: Is there anyone in opposition here for this item, PZ.2? Anyone who wants to speak on the item? Ms. Dougherty: I know the staff has made a recommendation of approval. Chair Sanchez: All right. Staff put that into the record, and then we're breaking for lunch. Mr. Lavernia: The Planning recommend -- Chair Sanchez: We'll be back at 3: 30, folks, 3: 30. Mr. Lavernia: -- approval with conditions, as presented. We put three conditions that I'm going to read for the record. Number one, special exception for this project is contingent on the approval of the requested variance. Andl have to explain that the variance was killed, so they don't need -- Ms. Dougherty: And we're not asking -- Mr. Lavernia: -- the variance anymore. Ms. Dougherty: -- for any variances. Mr. Lavernia: That condition, we eliminated that because they don't need the variance. Approval of this special exception shall run with the operator only. Any changes to a different operator shall require a separate special exception. And number two, an improvement to the existing parking area will require a replatting process with review and approval by the Public Works and the Planning Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. Commissioner Sarnoff. You're closing -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- at 3, correct? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chair Sanchez: That was the only -- I mean, that was the only issue that I had with that, it's closing at 3; not a problem. All right. Public hearing is open and closed at this time. It's an ordinance -- no, it's a resolution, right? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Chair Sanchez: Yeah, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Res -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. Ms. Thompson: Chair. Chair Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: There was no motion. Ms. Thompson: Mover, seconder? Commissioner Gonzalez: There was a motion andl second. Commissioner Sarnoff. I did the motion and Commissioner Gonzalez seconded it. Chair Sanchez: For the record, Commissioner Sarnoff, and it was second by Commissioner Gonzalez; and it passed 5/0. Ms. Dougherty: Thanks very much. Ms. Thompson: Four. Chair Sanchez: Four/zero, I'm sorry. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be back at 3: 30. We'll pick -- the first item at 3: 30 will be the panhandling ordinance. Thank you. We'll be back at 3: 30. PZ.3 08-00277v RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING THE APPEAL, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A REAR SETBACK OF 6'0" (20'0" REQUIRED), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5990 SOUTHWEST 2ND STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 08-00277v Analysis.PDF 08-00277v Zoning Map.pdf 08-00277v Aerial Map.pdf 08-00277v Letter of Intent.PDF 08-00277v Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 08-00277v Plans.PDF 08-00277v ZB Reso.PDF 08-00277v Appeal Letter.PDF 08-00277v CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 08-00277v CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 08-00277v CC Exhibit A.pdf 08-00277v CC Fact Sheet.pdf City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones R-08-0294 Chair Sanchez: PZ.3. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): PZ.3 is an appeal -- Chair Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Lavernia: -- of a variance that was denied by the Zoning Board It's for a single-family home. They're required 20 feet, and they're proposing only 6 feet The variance requested is for 14 feet, zero inches for a structure that is already built at the back of the house. The Planning Department is recommending denial, finding that there's no hardship that justify the variance. It was presented to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board deny it, and this is the appeal. Chair Sanchez: So it's coming to us with straight denial from Planning -- from both? Mr. Lavernia: And the Zoning Board yes. Chair Sanchez: All right. Enrique Abilleira: Yes. My name is Enrique Abilleira. I live on 5990 Southwest 2nd Street for 27 years. But long as I come to the house, this place is already build. I ask for, you know, variance to legalize the place. Chair Sanchez: And you've taken steps to legalize it? Mr. Abilleira: Yes, I do. I have plans and everything. I go through architects and other thing, I do it. Chair Sanchez: Okay. All right. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: I will move to grant the appeal in order for them to legalize the terrace. And this is the story -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Let me get a second. Second? Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll second. Chair Sanchez: Okay. We got a -- Commissioner Regalado: Okay. This is the story. The story is that they've lived there for many years, and they had a terrace built for many years. Apparently, somebody called, and they are willing to get all the permits and all that, but they were told that they needed first to get a variance; if not, they have -- they would have to demolish the whole terrace, so they opted for the variance. The Zoning Board made a motion to approve their appeal, but it failed because some vote -- or tie. Now what they have to do now, if the appeal is approved, they need to go and get a permit to just legalize the terrace. So that would be my motion, to grant the appeal. Chair Sanchez: All right. There's a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, sec -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Regalado, second by Commissioner Gonzalez. No further discussion on the item. City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 It's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." It passes. Madam Clerk, PZ.3 passes. Congratulations. Mr. Abilleira: Thankyou very much. I really appreciate it. Thankyou. PZ.4 08-00164zc ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S) AMENDING PAGE NO. 18, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL WITH AN SD-19 DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY DISTRICT, F.A.R. OF 2.1, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3528, 3530 AND 3586 NORTHWEST 36TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00164zc Analysis.PDF 08-00164zc Zoning Map.pdf 08-00164zc Aerial Map.pdf 08-00164zc Letter of Intent.PDF 08-00164zc Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 08-00164zc ZB Reso.PDF 08-00164zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 08-00164zc Exhi bit A.pdf 08-00164zc CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3528, 3530 and 3586 NW 36th Street [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire and Estrellita Sibila, Esquire, on behalf of Elite Construction & Development, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on March 10, 2008 by a vote of 5-4. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-2 Liberal Commercial with an SD-19 F.A.R. Overlay District, F.A.R. of 2.1. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12996 City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 opposition; nobody from the district here. Chair Sanchez: What item is that? Commissioner Gonzalez: It's PZ.4. I'm lucky enough not to have the problems of other Commissioners have. Chair Sanchez: All right. Listen. Commissioner Gonzalez: PZ.4. Anybody here on PZ.4, against PZ.4. You see? Chair Sanchez: All right. PZ.4. PZ.4 is an ordinance on second reading. Anyone from the public wishing to address --? Is there a motion? Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll move it. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Wait. Stop. Chair Sanchez: Is there a second? Ms. Thompson: I cannot hear. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Commissioner Sarnoff. Second. Chair Sanchez: Madam Clerk, there's a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Sarnoff. Ms. Thompson: Stop, please. Chair Sanchez: All right. There's a make -- there's a motion and a second, PZ.4. It's an ordinance on second reading. Just put something into the record, and then after this we'll go to lunch. All right, go ahead. Commissioner Gonzalez: Read the ordinance. Put something in the record. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Introduce the item. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): The time is a request for a Zoning change in order to add SD-19 that increase the FAR (floor area ratio) to 2.1. Planning Department recommend denial, but it was recommended approval by the Zoning Board by the City Commission, passed on first reading on April 24. Chair Sanchez: All right. Sir, briefly. Gilberto Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to say. Chair Sanchez: Just thank you. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Okay. All right. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. It's a public hearing. No one from the public. The public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission. No further discussion on the ordinance; read City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 it into the record, and then followed by a roll call on second reading. PZ.4. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chair Sanchez: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance -- Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Ms. Thompson: -- has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PZ.5 08-00408cr RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A PARTIAL RELEASE TO A UNITY OF TITLE ("UNITY") AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ("COVENANT) DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 16929, PAGES 4177-4184, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 600 NORTHWEST 24TH AVENUE AND 2455 NORTHWEST 6TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A. 08-00408cr Letter of Intent with Supporting Documentation.pdf 08-00408cr CC Reso 95-249 with Unity and Covenant.pdf 08-00408cr CC Legislation (Version 1).pdf 08-00408cr Exhibit A.pdf 08-00408cr Exhibit B - Unity.pdf 08-00408cr Exhibit B - Covenant.pdf 08-00408cr Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 600 NW 24th Avenue and 2455 NW 6th Street [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3] APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire, on behalf of The First Spanish United Presbyterian Church of Miami, Inc and La Progresiva Presbyterian School, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. OFFICE OF ZONING: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will allow a partial release to the existing Unity of Title and Declaration of Restrictive Covenant in order to release the residential duplexes at the properties above. City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Spence -Jones R-08-0293 Chair Sanchez: PZ.5. All right. You're recognized for PZ.5, and then we'll do PZ.3. Okay. You're recognized for the record. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): For the records, again, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. On 1995, there was a request for a special exception for -- to allow a primary and secondary school. That special exception include on plans two single-family structure that was adjacent to the school. The Planning Department imposed a condition that if there's going to be any changes to that structure as part of the school, we want to see the changes and the elevation. That's why the covenant is there. Now the school (UNINTELLIGIBLE) situation to include those structures. They want to sell it or have other plans for those structures that they're not going to be part of the school, and if they're not -- are not going to be part of the school, the Planning Department, they want to see it, what the amendment that they're doing to the facade; probably going to convert it to private property again. But -- Chair Sanchez: So this is basically a technicality. They need to separate the properties -- Gilberto Pastoriza: Yes, sir. Chair Sanchez: --from the united title? Mr. Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza, 2525 Ponce De Leon. Basically, we were asked or we were required by the prior resolution to put a unit [sic] to a title in the entire property. Two other lots, which are duplex lots, have always been duplex lots; neither the school nor the church are going to hold any need for them. And therefore, they would like to have the ability to be able to market those lots as duplex lots in the future. Chair Sanchez: So you want to separate the unified -- Mr. Pastoriza: We want to partially release those two lots from the unity of title and the covenant. Chair Sanchez: I got it. Okay. All right. Is there a motion Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Chair Sanchez: There is a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Sarnoff. Second. Chair Sanchez: Second. The motion is made by Commissioner Regalado, second by Commissioner Sarnoff. It is a resolution. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: PZ.5, resolution was passed 3/0, Madam Clerk, and now we go to PZ.3. PZ.6 08-00301sc RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S) CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING (A PORTION OF) A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO INCLUDE NORTHWEST 15TH AVENUE FROM NORTHWEST 3RD STREET TO NORTHWEST 6TH STREET, NORTHWEST 4TH STREET FROM NORTHWEST 14TH AVENUE TO NORTHWEST 16TH AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 5TH STREET FROM NORTHWEST 14TH AVENUE TO NORTHWEST 16TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY ATTACHED). 08-00301 sc Analysis. PDF 08-00301sc Zoning Map.pdf 08-00301 sc Aerial Map.pdf 08-00301sc Plat & Street Memos (County).pdf 08-00301sc Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 08-00301sc Warranty Deeds. PDF 08-00301sc Tentative Plat. PDF 08-00301sc Survey. PDF 08-00301 sc ZB Reso. PDF 08-00301 sc Public Works Letters. pdf 08-00301sc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 08-00301 sc Exhi bit A. pdf 08-00301sc CC Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately NW 15th Avenue from NW 3rd Street to NW 6th Street, NW 4th Street from NW 14th Avenue to NW 16th Avenue and NW 5th Street from NW 14th Avenue to NW 16th Avenue [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3] APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval with conditions* on March 6, 2008 by a vote of 6-0. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to the City Commission on April 14, 2008 by a vote of 9-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the proposed Miami Marlins Stadium. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones R-08-0295 Chair Sanchez: All right. Moving along with PZ. 6. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ.6. Chair Sanchez: All right, but let's put something on the record. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Sanchez: All right. PZ.6. Can you put something on the record? Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): PZ.6 is the closing, vacating, and abandoning of the public right-of-way. This was supposed to be done when the Marlins [sic] Stadium was constructed. It was legally never done. They built the stadium there and now what we're doing is proceeding with the legal procedure to close those alleys in order to have the -- clear the land to build the stadium. Chair Sanchez: To build the stadium. Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. Chair Sanchez: So this is a process to build the stadium. Mr. Lavernia: Yes. Chair Sanchez: Okay. There's a motion -- Maria," Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Roberto, you meant when the Orange Bowl Stadium was constructed Mr. Lavernia: The Orange Bowl, yes. Chair Sanchez: Okay. All right. There's a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, second by Commissioner Regalado. It is a -- it's an ordinance. Any discussion on the item? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. PZ.6 has been approved, 4/0. PZ.7 07-01381Iu ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO §163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 0.60± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 329, 333, 335, 337 AND 346 NORTHEAST 58TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 07-013811u PAB Reso.PDF 07-013811u School Impact Analysis.pdf 07-013811u CC Application Supporting Documents.pdf 07-013811u Legislation (Version 2).pdf 07-013811u & 07-01381zc Exhibit A.pdf 07-013811u Analysis.pdf 07-013811u Land Use Map.pdf 07-013811u Arial Map.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 329, 333, 335, 337, and 346 NE 58th Terrace [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Marcelo Fernandes, Vice -President, on behalf of 64 Development Corp. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 5, 2007 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File ID 07-01381zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to General Commercial. Motion by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: Any other item? Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Yes. Mr. Chair -- Commissioner Gonzalez: I also believe the Administration has some items that they're going to defer. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Well, actually -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- I'm going to continue -- Chair Sanchez: But before we do that, Commissioner Spence -Jones will not be here this afternoon, and therefore, we'll allow her to request any PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that she wants to defer to be placed on the record, and then we'll vote on them. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sanchez: You're quite welcome. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: First of all, PZ.7 and 8 and 13, I'm asking for those items to be continued. And then I'm also asking for D -- my personal items, D5.1, D5.2, D5.3 to also defer to the next meeting. City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair, may I ask, for the sake of recordkeeping, that we handle these individually. PZ.7 and 8 are companion items. Chair Sanchez: All right. Let's vote on those. There's a motion and a second on those -- both items. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Who was -- did the motion? Ms. Thompson: -- didn't hear a second. You -- the motion -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: So moved. Chair Sanchez: Listen, you made the motion; Commissioner Gonzalez second it. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: Okay. PZ.8 07-01381zc ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S) AMENDING PAGE NO. 14, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 329, 333, 335, 337, AND 346 NORTHEAST 58TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 07-01381zc Analysis.PDF 07-01381zc Zoning Map.pdf 07-01381zc Aerial Map.pdf 07-01381zc Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 07-01381zc ZB Reso.pdf 07-01381zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 07-013811u & 07-01381zc Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 329, 333, 335, 337, and 346 NE 58th Terrace [Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Marcelo Fernandes, Vice -President, on behalf of 64 Development Corp. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to the City Commission on January 14, 2008 by a vote of 6-1. See companion File ID 07-013811u. City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-2 Liberal Commercial. The applicant will proffer a covenant for these properties. Motion by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones [For minutes related to Item PZ.8, please see companion item PZ.7.] PZ.9 07-00939zt ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION 627, CONCERNING THE SD-27 MIDTOWN MIAMI SPECIAL DISTRICT TO CLARIFY THAT MULTIPLE USES ON THE SAME BUILDING INCLUDE A COMBINATION OF RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL AND OFFICE; EXCLUDING FROM THE DEFINITION OF MIXED USES IN SD-27 THE COMBINATION OF ONLY RESIDENTIAL AND/OR LIVE/WORK USES IN A BUILDING; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 07-00939zt PAB Reso.PDF 07-00939zt CC SR Legislation (Version 3).pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval without exceeding the approved Regional Activity Center (RAC). PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to the City Commission on July 23, 2007 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will permit retail and office uses in mixed -use buildings at intersections of the SD-27 "Midtown Miami Special District". Motion by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: Ladies and gentlemen, we go to the CRA. It was properly advertised after 10 o'clock. At this time -- Neisen Kasdin: Mr. Chair, ifI may. Neisen Kasdin. On PZ. 9, it was my understanding that was recommended to be continued. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: I wanted to give also the rest of mine so we can get them out of the way. Chair Sanchez: All right. PZ. 9. City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Vice Chair Spence -Jones: PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- yeah, PZ.9. Chair Sanchez: All right. PZ.9 is -- okay, PZ.9 -- need a motion to continue PZ.9. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: So moved. Chair Sanchez: Motion is -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- made by the Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Gonzalez. No discussion on the item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Madam Clerk, PZ.9 has been continued. PZ.10 08-00133zt ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 8, SECTION 803.6, "COCONUT GROVE NCD-3 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS", RELATING TO INDIVIDUAL EXISTING RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS (NCD) ABUTTING US-1 (FEDERAL HIGHWAY); PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN INDIVIDUAL RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT FOR LIMITED USES ONLY BY SPECIAL PERMIT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00133zt PAB Reso.PDF 08-00133zt CC SR Legislation (Version 3).pdf 08-00133zt CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on February 20, 2008 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will increase the square footage for grocery stores to be permitted without Special Exception requirement. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence -Jones 12998 Chair Sanchez: PZ.10. Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): PZ.10 -- for the record, Lourdes Slazyk -- is the second City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 reading ordinance on the NCD-3 amendment to allow the grocery store exception for the large-scale retail. We have made one change in the ordinance since first reading, and that was taking out that word "existing"for the grocery stores. This will apply to retail establishments exclusively for the sale of groceries abutting US 1 and not exceeding the 40,000 square feet within the underlying C-1. So in order to have a grocery store, they still have to go through a Class II It's not going to be by right. They can go up to 40,000 square feet, and it's got to be C-1 abutting US 1. Chair Sanchez: So basic -- Ms. Slazyk: Andl think everybody was okay with that. The community was okay; staff the Law Department. I think we're all fine with that. Chair Sanchez: So you removed that friendly amendment that was put in at the last minute. Ms. Slazyk: Exactly. And the corrected legislation is in the package, so I don't think we even -- I'm claming for the record that that legislation was changed from first reading, but it's already in your package corrected. Commissioner Sarnoff. Move PZ.10. Chair Sanchez: Okay. It is -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- an ordinance -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- on second reading. It's been amended. Madam Clerk, can we put that language into the record --? Which you did already. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yeah. Chair Sanchez: Okay. All right. It's an ordinance on second reading. It requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward and be recognized. Seeing no one, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commission for deliberation. Hearing no discussion on the item, read the ordinance on second reading into the record, as amended, and then we'll go for a roll call vote. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Chair Sanchez: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, as modified through the language, 4/0. PZ.11 08-00136zt ORDINANCE Second Reading City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 10, SECTION 10.6.3.6, IN ORDER TO INTRODUCE SECTION 10.6.3.6.1. VERTICAL SHOPPING CENTER SIGN REGULATIONS IN THE SD-6 ZONING DISTRICT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00136zt PAB Reso.PDF 08-00136zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 08-00136zt CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on March 5, 2008 by a vote of 7-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow for greater flexibility of signs for vertical shopping centers including the use of graphics. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Spence -Jones 12999 Chair Sanchez: All right. PZ.11, it's an ordinance on second reading -- Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): Yes. I don't think -- Chair Sanchez: -- and that's pertaining to the vertical shopping center sign regulation. Ms. Slazyk: Right, for the Omni area, and we did insert the recommendations of the PAB (Planning Advisory Board), andl think we had everybody in favor at first reading. Chair Sanchez: All right. Need a motion. Commissioner Sarnoff. So moved. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Sarnoff -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- second by Commissioner Regalado. Before we open it up for discussion, public hearing ordinance on second reading. Anyone from the public wishing to address this item, please step forward. For the record, no one. The public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commissioner [sic] for deliberation. No further discussion on the item. It's on second reading. Madam Attorney, read the ordinance into the record, followed by a roll call. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria 1 City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chiaro. Chair Sanchez: Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 3/0. PZ.12 08-00298zt ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE I, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED, "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, IN GENERAL," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 4-11, ENTITLED, "EXCEPTIONS TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS," TO RENAME THE DISTRICT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE CULTURAL SPECIALTY DISTRICT ALONG SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, FROM SOUTHWEST 12TH AVENUE TO SOUTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS THE ART AND THEATER CULTURAL SPECIALTY DISTRICT WITH EXTENDED BOUNDARIES ALONG SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET FROM SOUTHWEST 10TH AVENUE TO SOUTHWEST 27TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW DISTANCE EXEMPTIONS FORA MAXIMUM OF 15 ESTABLISHMENTS SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AS A COMPONENT OF A CULTURAL FACILITY; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00298zt PAB Reso.PDF 08-00298zt Land Use Map.pdf 08-00298zt Zoning Map.pdf 08-00298zt Aerial Map.pdf 08-00298zt CC SR Legislation (Version 3).pdf 08-00298zt CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on April 16, 2008 by a vote of 6-2. PURPOSE: This will extend the boundaries and allow a maximum of 15 establishments serving alcoholic beverages as a component of a cultural facility. Motion by Chair Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Spence -Jones 13000 Chair Sanchez: All right. PZ.12. City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): PZ.12 is the second reading for the special district along Southwest 8th Street. There was a -- the boundary was expanded and the number of license was increase. It's the second reading. However, we want to introduce a minor change. When we did the exercise reading what 410 of the City Code did, they have a 1, 000 feet requirement from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) school. We did the exercise, and we have a problem with that. So we're adding a line saying, "Notwithstanding Section 410, the distance from any public school in the art and theater cultural special district shall be 500 feet with the same method of measurements." Chair Sanchez: All right. So that's it. It's been modified, right? Mr. Lavernia: Yes, as modified Chair Sanchez: Madam Clerk, do you have that language? All right. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes sir. I'm sorry, yes. Chair Sanchez: Commissioner Sarnoff, I'm going to move this item, PZ.12. I make a motion to approve, as amended. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Sanchez: And before there's discussion, I believe the public wants to address. Commissioner Sarnoff. Public hearing is opened. Bob Powers: Bob Powers, with the MiMo (Miami Modern)/Biscayne Association. Gentlemen, the one thing that we want you guys to consider as well is our district for this, andl know -- I believe some of you guys have been briefed on it already. I would just like you to consider our district for this as well because we're going to be coming up with wanting that same application done in the MiMo/Biscayne -- you know, that district, so -- Commissioner Sarnoff. It's in -- Mr. Powers: -- I don't know if it can be amended or it needs to be a pocket item or how it needs to be done, but -- Commissioner Sarnoff. It's in the works, Bob. Mr. Powers: Okay, good. Commissioner Sarnoff. It' s-- Mr. Powers: I'm sorry. Commissioner Sarnoff. Matter of fact, April 16, the request went in to the City Attorney. Mr. Powers: Thank you. That's all we wanted. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yes, Commissioner Sanchez. Chair Sanchez: Got to close the public hearing. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'm sorry. Anybody else from the public wishing to be heard? Hearing City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 none, seeing none, the public hearing is closed, coming back to the Commissioner. Commissioner Sanchez. Chair Sanchez: Before I forget, tomorrow is Friday and tomorrow we celebrate Cultural Friday on Calle Ocho. Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): I think it's the following Friday, sir. Chair Sanchez: Is it? It's the last Friday, yes, so it's -- Mr. Hernandez: Last Friday. Chair Sanchez: Okay, so I want to take the opportunity to invite you to Cultural Friday. This is a perfect example of how we could accomplish these things when we bring in the arts and cultural aspect to a community, which is very important. They're celebrating their seventh year now, but really now it's expanded to a point where not only do we have in a specific area -- I believe it's like 17 art galleries, but now we're taking another area now that we have five or six small theaters that have been converted into small theaters, 60 seats, 50 seats, and the whole area has been able to pick up because of the ambience and the entertainment. What this does, it allows certain businesses to have a liquor license. Now, they're restricted. They're not going to have a liquor license 'til 5 o'clock, and they're not going to be able -- they're restricted in what they could do, but it just adds an element to these businesses that they're struggling to make it, they're succeeding, but they'll be able to have an opportunity now to sell wine and beer and be able to entertain people. So this is --I know that my office has been contacted, and have been contacted by other parts of the City to push for this. This is something that could benefit an area tremendously, and therefore, I continue to promote this, and once again, take the opportunity to invite you, not this Friday, next Friday to Cultural Friday on 8th Street. Roll call. Commissioner Sarnoff. Roll -- Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I think we have to read the ordinance. Chair Sanchez: Yeah, no, read the ordinance. Commissioner Sarnoff. I'm sorry. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, as modified, 3/0. Chair Sanchez: All right. Thank you. PZ.13 08-00500zt ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S) AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES," ARTICLE I, ENTITLED "IN GENERAL," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 4-2, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS," AND SECTION 4-11, ENTITLED "EXCEPTIONS TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS," TO CREATE THE WYNWOOD ARTS DISTRICT, ALLOWING DISTANCE EXEMPTIONS AND ALTERNATE PARKING City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 STANDARDS FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 08-00500zt Color Map.pdf 08-00500zt CC Legislation (Version 1).pdf 08-00500zt Attachment A.pdf 08-00500zt Attachment B.pdf APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will create the Wynwood Arts District and allow a cap of 15 liquor licenses within the boundaries. Motion by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: Now PZ.13, we need to continue. Need a motion. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: So moved. Chair Sanchez: Motion is -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- made by the Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Sarnoff. Is there anybody here for PZ.13? Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Yeah, they're here. Chair Sanchez: All right. But the Commissioner has a right to defer her item. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: And I've been very clear with the Administration -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- on deferring that. Chair Sanchez: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." But it wasn't deferred; it was continued, correct? Vice Chair Spence -Jones: It was continued, yeah. Chair Sanchez: So it's continued to the next PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda. You'll be properly informed as to the meeting. City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 PZ.14 07-01172x RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, UNDER CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES OF C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL (13), TO ALLOW HIRING HALLS, EMPLOYMENT OFFICES AND LABOR POOLS, SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1757 NORTHWEST 23RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 07-01172x Analysis.PDF 07-01172x Zoning Map.pdf 07-01172x Aerial Map.pdf 07-01172x Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 07-01172x Plans.PDF 07-01172x ZB Reso.PDF 07-01172x Appeal Letter.PDF 07-01172x CC Clarification of Parties Letter.pdf 07-01172x CC School Board Letter.pdf 07-01172x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 07-01172x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 07-01172x Exhibit A.pdf 07-01172x CC 05-22-08 Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1757 NW 23rd Street [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Michael A. Gil, Esquire and Melissa Tapanes Llahues, Esquire, on behalf of KEA Investment, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and denial of the Special Exception. ZONING BOARD: Denied the Special Exception on October 29, 2007 by a vote of 5-4. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow an employment office in the C-2 Liberal Commercial zoning district. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be WITHDRAWN PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Mr. Chair -- Chair Sanchez: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Guys, let's take control of the agenda. I don't want to lose it. City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Gonzalez: We -- Chair Sanchez: Let's go to CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). Commissioner Gonzalez: -- also have an attorney representing PZ.14 that is going to request a continuance also. Mellissa Tapanes Llahues: A withdrawal. Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, withdrawal. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Let's get all the continuance out -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Listen, all the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that are going to be asked for deferral, can we please come up and just state them on the record so we could get them out of the way, okay? Which is your item? PZ -- Ms. Tapanes Llahues: PZ.14. Chair Sanchez: PZ.14. You're asking for a continuance? Ms. Tapanes Llahues: A withdrawal, sir. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Excuse me. Chair Sanchez: Oh, you're withdrawing? Commissioner Gonzalez: Withdrawing. Chair Sanchez: State your name and address for the record. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Good morning. Melissa Tapanes Llahues, with the law firm of Bercow Radell & Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here representing Pacesetter Personnel. We are here to withdraw the item. It's a special exception to permit an employment office in Allapattah. We were denied by P -- by the Planning and Zoning Board, 5/4. We worked with the School Board, the elementary school, as well as neighbors to address concerns, but we realize, as parents and corporate citizens, that we're going to have a very difficult time to overcome the presumption of the incompatibility of our use with the neighboring children, so we look forward to bringing it back a new location to this Commission and having your support at that time. Chair Sanchez: All right. Madam Clerk, if I'm not mistaken, we do not need proper action for withdrawals. The item has been withdrawn. Ms. Thompson: Yes, you do, because it's an -- Chair Sanchez: We do? Ms. Thompson: -- item on your agenda. So if you're withdrawing it completely now, yes, you would need a motion. Chair Sanchez: All right. Need a motion to withdraw the item. Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll move -- City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: The motion has been made by Commissioner -- Commissioner Gonzalez: -- I move the withdrawal. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- Gonzalez, second by the Vice Chair. Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Thank -- Chair Sanchez: No further discussion on the item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. Ms. Tapanaes Llahues: Thank you. PZ.15 08-00169v RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING VARIANCES FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 19, SECTION 1901, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW AN INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK (NORTH) OF 0'0" (15'0" REQUIRED); A STREET SIDE SETBACK (SOUTH) OF 4'6" (15'0" REQUIRED); AND A REAR SETBACK (WEST) OF 2'10" (7'6" REQUIRED), FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 888 BRICKELL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 08-00169v Analysis.PDF 08-00169v Zoning Map.pdf 08-00169v Aerial Map.pdf 08-00169v Letter of Intent.PDF 08-00169v Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 08-00169v Plans.PDF 08-00169v ZB Reso.PDF 08-00169v Appeal Letter.pdf 08-00169v CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 08-00169v CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 07-01172x Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 888 Brickell Avenue [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPELLANT(S): W. Tucker Gibbs, Esquire, on behalf of Otis Wragg, 1000 Brickell Avenue, Unit 400 and the Brickell Avenue Condominium Association, Inc. APPLICANT(S): Santiago D. Echemendia, Esquire and Bob de la Fuente, Esquire, on behalf of Alphatur, N.V. FINDINGS: City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the appeal and denial of the Variances. ZONING BOARD: Granted the Variances on March 24, 2008 by a vote of 3-2. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow fewer setbacks than required for a mixed -use tower. Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Spence -Jones Chair Sanchez: PZ.15 or --? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yep. Chair Sanchez: Yeah, 15. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning Department): PZ.15 is -- Chair Sanchez: PZ.15. Mr. Lavernia: -- an appeal of the granting of a variance by the Zoning Board The Planning Department -- Santiago Echemendia: We have -- Robert, just a second. There -- I'm sorry. We have a motion to dismiss on the floor first before he gets into his presentation. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Yeah. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, the applicant in this case has filed a motion to dismiss citing various points of law. I have reviewed the motion andl have reviewed our Zoning Ordinance, and I've determined that the appeal is properly before you. Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chair -- Chair Sanchez: So the appeal is properly before us -- Ms. Bru: Yes. Chair Sanchez: -- based on your recommendation? Ms. Bru: Yes, sir. Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chair, I -- with all due respect -- Santiago Echemendia, 1441, on behalf of the applicant. You have a motion to dismiss in front of you. The -- with all due respect to the City Attorney, that is her opinion. The City Commission has to vote on the motion to dismiss. Hers is really -- it's a ruling/recommendation, but you do have a motion before you, so I would like to at least articulate our position on the motion. Ms. Bru: I beg to der. There is no vote required. Mr. Echemendia: Can I at least articulate our position on the motion, please? Chair Sanchez: We -- with all due respect -- Ms. Bru: You can proffer whatever arguments you want to make for the record. City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Echemendia: Our position is that it's bad policy. What basically ended up happening here, aside from the legal issues -- you've heard a lot of legal arguments today, so I'll dispense with the legal arguments that are in our motion to dismiss, but what's very important here is the following. We went in front of the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board approved our application. The building across the street, though they got notice, ample notice, did not appear in front of the Zoning Board. Rather, an appeal was filed within 15 days thereafter. So what happens is a practical matter if you allow people not to appear in front of the Zoning Board, but rather simply out of convenience or otherwise negligence because it either didn't come to our attention or they didn't hire the lawyer in time, they simply file a letter, appear before you, take two hours of your time, when the Zoning Board, which is the body that could have issued a final order, should have heard the item -- could have heard the item, could have heard the opposition, could have if, theoretically, you could have reached an agreement, you would have had the lower board vet the issue, but instead, you have us appearing in front of you on an appeal taking two hours of your time. We believe that it's bad policy. We believe that it's not the correct law. It -- your Code refers to an appeal. An appeal requires that you appear below. Now notwithstanding the fact that this is de novo, andl think Tucker will argue it's de novo, and therefore, it's not an appeal -- de novo goes to whether you're limited to the record or not. This is -- we can submit new evidence into the record, et cetera, but it is still an appeal. So, for purposes of the record, we want to preserve the argument that the appellant does not have standing. They did not appear in front of the Zoning Board. It is, first, bad policy to allow this to happen because folks could then just circumvent the Zoning Board. Let's forget about going in front of the Zoning Board. Let's just file a letter and go in front of the City Commission and take your good time and ignore the fact that you have a Zoning Board below. I -- as a practical matter, it's bad policy. And if your City Attorney advises you that your ordinance allows you to do it, I would respectfully submit that the ordinance needs to be refined to disallow folks from basically ignoring the Zoning Board and taking up your good time relative to an appeal when it could have otherwise possibly been resolved in front of the Zoning Board. Moreover, we've cited case law in our motion to dismiss that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that's as far as I'll go on the record. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Tucker. Tucker Gibbs: Yeah. I'll be brief andl'll start off by saying my name is Tucker Gibbs, with law offices at 2980 McFarlane Road, Suite 205, in Coconut Grove, and I'm representing the 1000 Brickell Condominium Association and Otis Wragg, who are the property owners immediately adjacent to this property. I'm going to make it very brief. Number one, I don't expect to be here for two hours. I've been here all day, so -- andl know what you've been through. This is not Kubik. Number two, your Code is very clear. There are provisions in your Code that specifically say who can appeal an item or who can request your review of a Zoning Board decision. Nowhere in your Code does it say that somebody has to appear in front of the Zoning Board to be able to be an aggrieved party to bring an action before you. Your City Attorney is absolutely correct. I have prepare -- I presented to each of you all and left with you -- andl will give to Mr. Echemendia -- my response to his motion. I will let that speak for itself andl would agree with the City Attorney. I don't think you need to vote on this. I think this is a matter for the courts to decide, and whoever loses this matter today will probably end up taking it to court. Let them decide. Mr. Echemendia: I would -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Echemendia: -- for a moment, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to thank Mr. Gibbs for affording us the opportunity to review his pleading from the floor since we provided him with a copy of ours on Monday. City of Miami Page 134 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Gibbs: Since I just passed it out to the City Commission, I thought it was only appropriate that you all get it first, since you all are the people who are deciding the issue. I don't expect you to read it because I just provided it to your offices. Maybe some of you haven't even gotten it, but I will give Mr. -- Mr. Echemendia: Excuse me. I think have the floor. Mr. Gibbs: -- Echemendia a copy. Mr. Echemendia: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: I don't think you all need to vote on it anyway. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Let's go. Ms. Bru: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I agree with Mr. Echemendia that, as a matter of policy, we should revise our ordinance to make it clear that in order to be an aggrieved party entitled to appeal to the City Commission, they should have appeared in the record at the board below. We are going to bring that modification to the next City Commission meeting for your consideration. Chair Sanchez: All right. Okay. Let's get this show on the road. Let's go. Mr. Echemendia: It's your show. It's an appeal. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you very much, Mr. Echemendia, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just get myself -- I had one argument set up, so now I've got to set up for another argument. Chair Sanchez: How many people are here on this item? Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Alvarez is my expert witness. Mr. Echemendia: I think it's our team and their team. Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. Chair Sanchez: Okay. All right. Tucker, how much time are you going to need? Mr. Gibbs: I think that we'll probably take maybe 15 minutes. Chair Sanchez: All right. From your lips to God's ears. Mr. Gibbs: You better believe it. Okay. Again, my name is Tucker Gibbs. I represent the 1000 BrickellAvenue Condominium Association and Mr. Otis Wragg, who owns a unit in that condominium. My clients own property adjacent to the applicant's property. The applicant owns the property 888 Brickell Avenue, and the applicant was seeking four variances; one, a 15 foot variance on the north side, and that means a 15 foot variance -- it would go from a 15 foot required setback to a zero setback; number two, a 10-foot, 6-inch variance on the south side from a 15 foot setback required to a 4-foot, 6-inch setback on the south side; and number three, a 4-foot, 8-inch variance on the west side from a 7-foot, 6-inch requirement to a 2-foot, 10-inch setback; and finally, to allow one loading bay, which would -- the dimensions would be 12 feet by 35 feet by 15 feet, where four loading bays of that size are required. My clients object to the grant of the variance -- of these variances because they fail to meet all of the City's six standards for the grant of a zoning variance. In your Code, in Article 19, it talks about what a City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 variance is. A zoning variance is a relaxation of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance where such an action will not be contrary to the public interest by a petition demonstrating compliance with the requirements, limitations, and criteria specified in the Code. And here's the important part of the definition of a variance: "And where owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship on the property." That's in Section 1901. The Code also requires, in Article 19, that the applicant demonstrate that it meets all the criteria in Section 1903.2. And when -- and it says specifically that the applicant has to file a written petition that examines each of these criteria, and it must be submitted, and that's the application. There are six criteria that must be met. I don't know if I have to go through all these -- I guess I'll have to go through each of them, given the fact that we have a court reporter present. But number one, special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved, and which are not applicable to other land, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The applicant says in their petition that the small size corner location and liner use requirement -- and I'm going to quote directly because this is very important -- "would not allow the construction of a parking garage to accommodate the required parking for any project without the requested variances." What they're saying is is they can't build anything on that property without the variance. But the applicant is incorrect. A project that meets the requirements of the Zoning Code can be built here on this property without the required variance because that pretty picture here that you're looking at that is their building is the building they want to build. But in the Zoning Code, there are many things that can be built on that property. There's actually a building on that property now, but there are many things that can be built in the Zoning Code that do not require a variance, and that's critical in the law, and I'm going to get to that in a second. Number two, special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the petitioner or the applicant. The applicant says it didn't plat the property nor did it subdivide the property that resulted in the current lot. That's absolutely correct, but the applicant bought the property. The applicant chose to purchase this property and develop this property with the understanding and knowledge of its limitations. These people are not stupid. When they bought the property, they knew what they were getting. On top of that, knowing they bought this small property -- relatively small -- even though, as your Planning staff will tell you, this is a lot that is bigger than the typical lot on Brickell Avenue -- knowing this, they decided they were going to build this building that needed the variances and not another building that didn't need the variances. Therefore, those special conditions about this building are created by these people. Number three, literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district -- and this is key, and this is the one that every court decision relating to the City of Miami Zoning Code and variances focuses on -- and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. Now the applicant says it cannot redevelop this property without the requested variances because the variances required, again, "to create a" -- excuse me. The variances are required to create a 'functional parking garage" necessary to accommodate the "required"parking, and put required in quotes because it's the required parking for the project that they've designed on a property that's going to -- that's basically vacant for them. Florida courts interpreting the City's variances -- variance provisions, in particular, Article 19 and Section 19. -- 1903.2, have stated emphatically -- and this is dealing with the City ofMiami variance code, to grant a variance in Miami, the Commission must find that without the variance it is virtually impossible to use the land as it is presently zoned, not as the developer wants to develop it, but as it is zoned. That's Herrera versus the City ofMiami and Auerbach versus the City ofMiami. I'm sure your City Attorney's Office can read you chapter and verse on both those cases, and Auerbach dealt with a parking structure with a liner, which is what this is, and the Third District Court of Appeal, in a very strongly -worded opinion, said don't come to us with stuff like this anymore. If you don't meet the hardship standard, you cannot get a variance. In a recent case, the circuit court, which was also upheld by the Third District, stated the fact that a project can be built without a variance demonstrates conclusively that an indispensable requirement of a hardship variance that no reasonable use could be made to the property without it does not exist. These variances -- this variance does not meet the hardship City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 requirement set forth in the City Code or as examined in Florida case law. Number four in terms of the six standards -- remember, all six of these must be met to grant a variance. Number four, granting the variance requested conveys the same treatment to the individual owner as to the owner of other lands, buildings, or structures in the same district. The applicant -- interestingly enough here, the applicant never addressed this particular point in the application. Remember, your Code requires the applicant to respond to every single one of these criteria. In the applicant's -- in the application package, this particular criteria is not addressed. Again, the proposed development fails to meet this requirement because there are other buildings in the district without variances, and more importantly, this developer, as I said before, bought the property with knowledge of its limitations and made the choice to build this particular building in this particular fashion. Now he wants to build more than he's allowed, and he wants you to let him do so where he doesn't meet all six requirements. Number five, the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The applicant says that the setback and loading bay variances "reflect the minimum relaxation of the requirements that will allow the construction of a functional parking garage." Again, the applicant can build a different building on this site that meets the requirements of the Zoning Code without the need of a variance. Remember, as long as the owner can build anything permitted under the Zoning Code at this location, it has the reasonable use of the property. As long as he can build something that meets that Zoning Code, he doesn't need a variance, and he's not entitled to a variance, and that's Auerbach versus the City ofMiami, Herrera versus the City ofMiami. The owner doesn't need the variance to have reasonable use of its property under the Zoning Code. And finally, the grant of the variance is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code, in particular, showing compliance with Sections -- andl know you'll love these sections -- 1305.2 and 1305.3, as if you hadn't heard enough about those today. The applicant states that the office use with residential and retail components that is the objective of SD-5 can only be met if this project can provide the required parking, which can only be provided if the variance is granted. This is also not true. The owner can build, again, another project that meets the Zoning Code without the need for a variance. He can build a smaller project. He can build the -- that project that's there right now meets the Zoning Code; this project doesn't. He can build something different on this site. What the owner is trying to do is get a variance so it can build the project that it wants to build. The Code says, though, to get a variance only if the owner can prove by competent and substantial evidence that it meets all six of the criteria. It does not. If this wasn't enough to reject these variance requests, your professional staff with no ax to grind -- these are not hired guns. I've hired my expert; they may have an expert. But the fact is, your professional staff has examined this without any ax to grind, and they've evaluated the application against the criteria in this project, and staff has found that the applicant has failed to meet all the criteria for the grant of a zoning variance. I think they said they met one of the six. Remember, they've got to meet every single one of them. Professional staff -- your professional staff recommends denial. According to the law, the City Commission must base its decision on competent, substantial evidence. The cases say competent and substantial evidence includes the testimony of professional staff or expert witnesses and staff reports. And finally, Florida courts, including the Third District Court of Appeal here in Dade County -- in Miami -Dade County, have recognized the rights of neighbors, such as my clients, in these variance disputes. And this is what they say, in quoting a case that came out of Hollywood in 1961. Neighboring property owners have a right to rely on existing zoning conditions, and they have a right to the continuation of those conditions in the absence of a showing that a variance is necessary. This variance should be rejected because it fails to meet the definition of a variance 'cause there's no hardship. It fails to meet all six of the requirements for the grant of a variance in 1903.2. The application is incomplete; 1903.2(d) was not responded to in the application. And four, staff which is your competent and substantial evidence, says this project -- this variance request does not meet the criteria. Finally, look at the criteria, listen to your professional staff and reject these variances. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff Tucker, do you happen to have Auerbach and Gueverra [sic]? City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Gibbs: Pardon me? Auerbach, yes, I do. Commissioner Sarnoff. Can I see them? Mr. Gibbs: It's marked up, but do have it, ifI can find it. Chair Sanchez: All right. You want to bring your experts or what? Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Let me clean my mess up over here, andl have -- like to have Mr. Alvarez testin, regarding the garage and the use of the land. And I'll get the case for you, Commissioner. Ms. Bru: Tucker, we're getting him the case. Mark Alvarez: Good afternoon. I'm Mark Alvarez. I'm a professional planner. I've been practicing for 18 years in the state of Florida. I have a master's degree in city planning and a master's degree in civil engineering. I have done several parking studies among various other things in the states of Connecticut, Florida, Washington, and let's see on here -- also Coral Gables. The question I was asked was really -- since this tended to come down to the issue of the side variances and whether that prohibited a parking garage within the building or parking ramp. And by the way, I have no ax to grind either. I would tell Tucker if he was wrong. But basically -- and have -- the available width of the property is 93.83 feet. The required setbacks are 15 feet on each side -- I'm sorry. I said that wrong. The width of the property is 123.83 feet. There are 15-foot required setbacks on each side, leaving 93.83 feet available for the building. Your Code requires a parking aisle in -- within structured parking of 23 feet wide and 18-foot stalls. Typically, actually, it's 24 feet wide, and what we usually look -- think about is what we call a 60-foot-wide tray, double -loaded parking, 18 feet on each side; 90-degree parking, 24 feet in the middle. If it's against a wall, we add two feet on each side, and then you would allow for walls and some sort of a ramp to get from one to the other, if it's one tray. So doing the math very simply, a 60-foot tray, double -loaded on each side with the aisle, as required, plus two feet for each side by the wall is 64 feet. You would need a ramp going from parking level to parking level, separate ramp; would add up to 23 feet, and then allowing a little bit for floor walls, let's say two feet for a wall, to be generous, and you would have 83 feet plus another 8, which is 91 feet. That fits within the 93.83 feet that's available. I think it's that simple. I guess that's it. Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Alvarez: Do you have any questions? Chair Sanchez: On this process, both sides have the right to cross-examine. Do you wish to do that? Mr. Echemendia: Yes. Yes, sir. Hey, Mark. Your -- are you -- have you ever designed a parking garage? Mr. Alvarez: I have done several parking studies, which this is not -- I've done numerous parking studies. I'm very familiar with the parking requirements. Mr. Echemendia: So -- well -- Mr. Alvarez: I'm not an architect; I can't get into the structural requirements and the poles and so forth in there, but I know what's required for the widths. Mr. Echemendia: So you're not a civil engineer, so you -- Mr. Alvarez: I have a master's in civil engineering. City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Echemendia: You do. But have you -- again, if you could just answer my question, you -- it seemed like you said you have never designed a parking garage. Is that correct? Mr. Alvarez: Not as a signed and sealed design -- Mr. Echemendia: Thank you. Mr. Alvarez: -- no. Mr. Echemendia: Thankyou. That's it. Mr. Alvarez: That's it? Mr. Echemendia: Yep. Mr. Alvarez: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Is that it? Okay. Is that your --? Tucker, does that conclude your presentation? Mr. Gibbs: That's it, except for a rebuttal. Chair Sanchez: You're entitled to rebuttal, sir. Mr. Gibbs: Thankyou. Chair Sanchez: All right. Counsel, you're -- Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. And you know, fortunately, this is not the Kubik. This is the SD-5 on Brickell Avenue, and hopefully, we won't be too legalistic on this, though we do have to walk you through the criteria. Santiago Echemendia, Tew Cardenas, 1441 Brickell Avenue. I'm accompanied by Reinaldo Borges of Borges and Associates, his whole team, my colleague, Amanda Quirk, and Richard Garcia, who's our traffic expert. Technically -- andl would hope that Tucker would be kind enough to stipulate this for the record -- there are -- actually, there are -- and I'll go through the four variances, but there is a north setback variance and a west setback variance, which, as we understand, his clients do not have a problem with. The problem really comes down to the ten -- the setback on 10th Street and the loading bays. Is that incorrect? Mr. Gibbs: That is incorrect. If we talk settlement, we'll talk settlement in a settlement negotiation -- Mr. Echemendia: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: -- but we're not going to do it here. Right now we are here to -- Mr. Echemendia: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: -- oppose your application, all four requests. Mr. Echemendia: Okay. Fair enough. So I guess those discussions were settlement discussions. We'll talk about them thereafter, hopefully, if afforded the opportunity, as I'm sure Commissioner Sarnoff would be kind enough to do. City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Gibbs: And Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Echemendia: Yeah. Excuse me. I -- Mr. Gibbs: -- I have to object. To bring these issues up at a hearing like this I think is incredibly objectionable, andl want to object to the record. Chair Sanchez: As stated. Mr. Gibbs: This is not helping their position with -- Chair Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: -- my clients. Mr. Echemendia: Your objection is well taken. The loading bays are not before you. Procedurally, we -- what happened was -- an incidentally, the Zoning Board approved this application, and that's why we're here; that's why Mr. Gibbs is here appealing on behalf of his client. So they were approved, and the -- what ended up happening was that the variance for the loading bay was unfortunately misadvertised by the City, so we came back to the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board indefinitely deferred the loading bays so that we can figure out a way to provide -- and it's not four -- it's actually three loading bays are required. Well, we went to the drawing board, and we have found a mechanism to provide three loading bays, and Reinaldo Borges will walk you through that, and that will not be a variance. That will be by way of a Class II So really, at the end of the day, what this should come down to is the variance on loth Street, and we'll get a little bit more into that. Incidentally, just as a -- just to kind of clam just two points that Tucker made with respect to -- when our client bought the property in 1984, Brickell was not what it is today. And Herrera refers to the zoning as it is zoned, and it's important to note that this property is zoned SD-5. The purpose of SD-5 is to promote high-rise development. The building that currently exists there is 46,000 square feet; it's 7 stories. I would respectfully submit that that is not a high-rise, certainly not the type of high-rise that you see on Brickell Avenue. So the loading bay is not before you, and hopefully, we'll bring it down to the variance on the south side. This application cannot really -- shouldn't really be reviewed as just a straight variance application. Commissioner Sarnoff, since this is in your district, I'd like to kind of catch your attention a little bit or your eye, ifI may. We -- it's a Class II -- well, there are some variances, but it went through -- initially, it was kind of processed as a Major Use Special Permit. And we, indeed, garnered the support of the Brickell Avenue Homeowners Association, and there's a letter in your packet that confirms that, and you know how rigorously they review all the projects. They are supportive. The internal design review board approved the application. The Large -Scale Development Review Board approved the application. The Urban Design Review Board unanimously approved the design. The Historic Environmental and Preservation Board, we received approval from them and for the archaeological monitoring plan. We have a sufficiency letter relative to the traffic study. We also did an economic impact analysis, which is in your packet and benefits the City. The fiscal benefits in these dire times include approximately 450,000 annually into the general fund in ad valorem taxes and City debt service ad valorem taxes, recurring $3 million annually by occupants of buildings -- by occupants of the building, with an overall economic impact to the City of 6.3 million annually. This was done by Sharpston Bronstein, folks that -- and Andy Dolkart -- you've seen as experts in all of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) applications that come through here. So with that, you can see that this isn't a project that was brought before you willy-nilly; that it's a variance application. It's gone through not one but it's gone through one, two, three, four boards that have recommended approval and one Zoning Board that approved the application, which was then, in our opinion, untimely filed or filed without standing. So -- but now let's -- what's important -- I mean, you've -- unfortunately -- and I've kind of indulged us for -- or thank you for indulging me for a minute, you know, andl will have to go through the legalities later of the City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 variance and why we meet the standard. Just -- I'd like to introduce Reinaldo. He's going to walk you through the pretty pictures; why, because of the constraints in the site, we are where we are today. Incidentally, as a matter of right under the Code today, if we were to redevelop the site, it currently has 46,000 square feet, we could get, I think it's about 47 or 48,000 square feet. Obviously, that -- there's no economic impetus to redevelop the site as of right to basically get a few thousand more square feet. Before I forget, I want to make sure, because this is de novo, that everything from the boards below is incorporated into this record from all of the various boards that made recommendations up to and including the Zoning Board. And with that, I will turn it over to our esteemed architect, Reinaldo Borges. Commissioner Sarnoff Madam City Attorney, do we have those boards in front of us? Ms. Bru: I'm sorry. I was talking to the City Clerk. Commissioner Sarnoff Do we have those boards in front of us? Ms. Bru: I'm sorry. I was talking to the Clerk. I don't know what boards you're talking about, Commissioner. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, there's another motion then. I like to try to listen to people andl like to base my decisions based on what's presented to me. When they say, I hereby adopt everything that's ever been done before in the world before this time, you know, Ti, today, I would thinkyou would object, andl would thinkyou would say something like, well, come on. These Commissioners don't have this information before them today, and when you go take your appeal to the, you know, nice three judges over in the Eleventh Circuit, that they're going to say, oh, well, it was adopted and no one objected. Ms. Bru: Yeah. You're absolutely right, Commissioner. And I'm sorry. I was speaking to the Clerk about a matter dealing with this particular item to clam something. What you have before you today and what you could properly consider is what the evidence is here today and what was provided to you in your legislative package, nothing else. There's no such thing as adoption of anything, you know, by merely incorporating it by statement or reference. Mr. Echemendia: It was done as a matter of course, but that's fine. Reinaldo Borges: Thank you, Santiago. Good evening, esteemed Commissioners. Reinaldo Borges, for the record, with Borges and Associates at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. We're here all representing our client and his interest in the effort of developing this world -class building. This will be a [FED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) -certified building. We've already initiated the process with the US (United States) Green Building Council for it to be registered as a silver certified building. This particular client, I may say, is an international individual that has significant investments in this community and has an incredible love and care for Miami and has challenged our team to produce not only a world -class Class A office building, but a true icon for the City and for our fantastic banking avenue known as Brickell, which we're very proud of. We have gone, as Santiago has explained, through an extensive review process, as you know, with your very competent staff. We go through internal design review; that takes a while. We met all their criteria and their satisfaction. Then we went on through all the other procedures, all the way through urban design review, where we obtained unanimous approval of our project, our design. And then we went to the Zoning Board, with all the proper procedures, and we got their approval. And here tonight, I will be as detailed as I need to be in order to create an effective record. Andl know it's been a long day, so I'll try to keep it as short as possible. As you know, the context -- the project is situated right in the corner of Brickell and 10th Street. It's kind of like the gateway now into our restaurant district in the Brickell Village area, anchored by places such as Perricone's and all the other wonderful restaurants that we have in that area. This is true at the City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 epicenter of the Brickell financial area and at the heart of the Brickell Village area, which is really evolving into a true cosmopolitan area. We believe this building further distinguishes the area. This is the existing condition of the site, the building that's been referred to as the existing property. Obviously, this investor did not invest in this property for the benefits of this particular building that contains roughly 43,000 square feet. He's looked at a long-term project here, and obviously, when he did the purchase, he did not have a final design, and as we know, building codes -- zoning codes evolve, so he didn't really know that he was getting himself into a series of challenging design conditions such as what we face. The building, again, marks the corner of 10th Street and Brickell. You could see a photo montage into the context of the adjacent building, which we, by surprise, have received this opposition. Usually, as architects, we see opposition in residential neighborhoods. We have never experienced an opposition based in this kind of context where primarily everyone is in the business world and everybody's trying to bring Miami into a new future. And especially in these days where we have a challenging residential market, buildings such as this are fantastic for our city and for projecting the City into its future and not really paralyzing the City. You see it again here, photo montage, into the beautiful landscape ofBrickellAvenue. We believe it's a distinguished contributor to the new skyline of Brickell. And as Santiago noted, our friends over at the Brickell Avenue Association certainly agreed with that, and you have that letter from Mr. Jacobs. Again, photo montage into the skyline of the City so you get an idea of the building. And by the way, you do have a complete duplicate of this package for your records of the PowerPoint presentation. The building, as per criteria for design standards, has a lot of transparency; has a world -class -- Ms. Bru: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I hate to interrupt someone when they're speaking, but we're here looking at the criteria for granting a variance, not whether or not the project meets any other criteria that may be worth considering at some other future hearing. So I think we need to focus on the specific criteria for granting the variance, which is the only issue that's here before the Commissioners today. Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we're here making the record on variances and the way that he brings into context why we have a hardship and why the building is designed the way it is is to walk the Commissioners through the project. It would be foolhardy for the Commissioners not to have the benefit of knowing how it was designed and why we're in the predicament of having a hardship. I mean, are you going to foreclose our opportunity to be heard? That's just -- it's -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I will tell you this, get to your six criteria. It's a beautiful building, andl hope some way you can build it, but tell me six reasons why you can build it. Mr. Echemendia: And we will; it's going to take us a minute to get there, andl think we have the right to get you there so that you can see what -- how nicely designed -- Commissioner Sarnoff. So far, everything you've brought up, whether it was settlement or anything else, has nothing to do with why this Commission should take a vote. Chair Sanchez: It's irrelevant. Commissioner Sarnoff. So -- you know, I -- we've all been sitting here for a very, very long time. Trust me, I could feel Commissioner Sanchez's desire to move along. You just need to get to the six criteria. It's a beautiful building -- Mr. Echemendia: No, but -- Commissioner Sarnoff. -- and -- Mr. Echemendia: -- we need -- we will get you to the six criteria, Commissioner Sarnoff. Andl City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 think Reinaldo -- I would implore Reinaldo to do it as quickly as possible, but I've never seen a presentation in front of you where you're not walked through the project on an appeal, for God's sakes. I mean, if this thing gets appealed, we need to -- afford us the opportunity, afford us the procedural due process for Reinaldo to explain to you, which is his end objective, of why we're in the predicament that we're in, and then I'll walk you through the six criteria. Chair Sanchez: Go ahead. You may proceed. Mr. Borges: Thankyou. The story is short, but it needs to be told. Thankyou. Here it is. We're going to go quickly into the criteria. This is exactly the boundaries that the building has to be designed within. The area that you see in the green is the area that is the nature of the request of the variance. I will add -- and you'll see it in detail later -- that the entire footprint of the high-rise component of the project or the tower itself is well within all the limitations of setbacks. Therefore, the only variance -- and the variances are primarily for the parking pedestal. I'll take you real quick through the ground level. As you may know, the ground level has strict regulations by zoning criteria where the retail has to be exposed to the maximum linear footage possible to all the pedestrian streets along the perimeter of the site. We have also to meet FP&L (Florida Power & Light) criterias [sic] and loading dock criterias [sic] and also ramping up into our garage. We felt that it was most effective for traffic queuing and overall circulation to have all the entries into the garage from the alleyway, and we extended it far enough into the alleyway so that there would be adequate queuing, reducing any potential backup of traffic onto 10th Street. Also, as a matter of fact, the City doesn't really like to have any of these ingress and egress into the garage facing the primary pedestrian pathway. So in a site like this that offers us an alley, it's a natural solution. We have a world -class plaza fronting Brickell, very similar in detail and characteristics to that across the street at the Espirtu Santo Plaza, so you know, this kind of sets the tone for the ground -level pedestrian experience. Furthermore, which I think is important to the nature of our request, we have a full arcade along the street. If you look at the facade of the arcade, the facade of the arcade is about ten inches from the required setback, so at the street level, the building fully meets the required setback by Code, except on the upper levels, the garage sort of encroaches into the setback by the amount that's being requested of ten and a half feet. This is perhaps the most important exhibit, andl'm glad that the expert witness is a planner and not a mathematician because his numbers really don't add up, andl'm also curious to understand that he's primarily a planner and you know, we design different types of garages -- standalone garages. This is a garage that has a significant complex building on top of it, so the design criteria becomes a bit more complex, and the math is very basic. If you add the required depth of a parking space, which is 18 feet plus the 22 feet drive lane, which is already reduced by Class II because the City requires 23 -- we always know that 24 is the best, but in a high-rise situation we never get to provide that just because of the constraints of the site. So you got 18 plus 22 plus 18, that's 58. You multiply that times two; you add three feet in the middle, more or less, for sheer walls and all kinds of you know, mechanical issues. Overall, the width that we show here is 119 feet, 4 inches, and that's basically to the inch. I mean, we have been asked by our collaborating team many, many times is there any way to reduce this variance in any possible way, and basically, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my answer's always the same. It's impossible right now, given the design criteria, to design this type of garage under a tower with the associated (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) and stairs and all the other mechanisms that this garage could be any less than 19 feet, 4 inches, face to face, okay, and that's a fact. And you're hearing that from a design architect, not from someone who cannot even add two plus two it seems, so we move forward -- this exhibit that you see here basically shows the condition of the question what if we eliminate all the variances. In the green area that you see here is the requested variances, so you'll see that on the south side we actually end up with four cars parked parallel. On the north side, we basically don't have any way to introduce any parking, so the footprint gets consumed primarily by ramping with a total capacity on this particular layout of about seven cars, you know. Eighteen cars are lost, you know. This basically -- if we were to look at this and say, okay, we still want to build the same kind of building, we would have to have an outrageous amount of parking levels, which is not even logical. So this is sort of reviewing that. You also City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 will see that the building has a liner, which is required by Code, and this liner is a residential liner and it will be service apartments, and that liner also has, by Code, a minimum depth, and we have met that criteria. And that liner also has to have its own life/safety, stairs, and so on to get people out of there, so that element in orange that you see fronting Brickell is a liner that is required by Code and it goes through the pedestal fronting Brickell. The second scenario would be, well, what if we are able to remove the side variance on loth Street, and this illustration shows you what are the implications of that. Again, we lose seven cars per level with this, so on eleven levels, we lose about seventy-seven cars. If we multiply that times 800 square feet per car, we would lose, you know, that amount of FAR (floor area ratio) in the building. So this is that scenario just illustrative so that you could analyze that and consider it. On the upper levels, we also have a self-contained child care center which we believe a building such as this that also has residential and other amenities warranted, so the area in yellow is a child care center right above the parking podium. Then we have amenities, residential, and then we go another second and third level of residential as we transition onto the footprint of the tower. The footprint of the tower, as you see here, is already maximized with all the efficiencies that one has to design a world -class Class A office building (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) with all the mechanical apparatus and all the other Code -compliant elements associated with a building like this. As you could see, it's well within the 15 -- 30 foot frontage and so on, so it's fully within the parameters of the Code from the tower up. We also have a sky garden with a green roof and this image is kind of interesting because it's a frontal elevation fronting Brickell, and you will see, as you look at the image, the portion of green that's on your left is the portion of the requested variance of ten and a half feet along loth Street, and the other portion is the other side setback that we're requesting a variance on. You will see -- in relationship exactly to 1000 Brickell office building that we have a significant setback between our building and the opposer's building, and we believe really that, you know, this kind of ten foot -- ten and a half foot request, in the big picture of things, is really insignificant and should not be considered to be anything detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Sarnoff. So the ten and a half feet, which is depicted right here, starts at what height and goes to what height? Mr. Borges: Mr. Sarnoff, it starts right above the pedestal level, and you will see the pedestal level in this image that I'm about to show you here. This image here shows you the pedestal level all the way from Brickell Avenue on the right side all the way back to the alley side, and that entire pedestal is all treated with world -class, you know, storefront system, very transparent and other active retail, then there's stone cladding in the areas that we have the Florida Power & Light vault, but all of that is shaded and recessed and creates a shaded protected area. At that level, at the pedestrian level, the building is totally within the required 15 foot setback. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. That's my point. How high -- what, 15, 20, 30 feet? Mr. Borges: How high? That area is 20 feet. Commissioner Sarnoff. Twenty feet, and then -- Mr. Borges: The arcade. And then above that, you have 11 levels of parking. Commissioner Sarnoff. And that's your encroachment? Mr. Borges: That is the area of encroachment, as illustrated in that elevation image. And simply -- that image is very basic. You could visualize the ten and a half foot that we're requesting. You could see that from top to bottom the tower itself is totally within the required setbacks. On this image here, you see the minimal setback request on the alley side, which allows us for a full row of parking along that portion of the garage. So again, that is the illustration. You could see here all the details required for approval from urban design review. City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 We have a fountain, a cascade, along Brickell, beautiful lush landscaping. Again, you see it represented here in this image. We've received a lot of compliments. We've been very proud of the design, and I'm glad, Commissioner Sarnoff, that you also feel it's a beautiful project. There is a lot at stake for our client in this hearing here tonight, andl think a lot at stake also for the credibility of the City and its projection onto the future as we evolve as a community, especially in these times that we're experiencing. So we would hope that, you know, you allow us to move forward in this process, and look forward to any feedback or questions that you may have. Thank you. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner, I -- whatl would like to do -- andl could walkyou through the six criteria. I mean, we know the law; you know the law. You guys -- and we do think we have a unique hardship. You guys approve variances all the time; then don't. What I'd like to do is try to make this an exercise in what concerns you based on what you've seen and to see if we can get there, rather than go into a legalistic argument as to why we have a hardship because I don't think the intent, if all of the parties are here in good faith -- it's a nice building. The opposition is across the street; they have some concerns. We'd like to try to address their concerns. I would hope that we have a fair exercise in what concerns you as the Commissioner in this district and see if we can't address those rather than become legalistic and go through the six criteria and be afforded the same right that everybody has when they come and they get a continuance and they go back and they work on the project and they come back to you with something that, in the view of the Commissioner in whose district the property lies, is more compatible, et cetera, et cetera. Commissioner Sarnoff. I can't deny the fact that possibly in other districts variances are granted where they shouldn't be, but in this district, and as long as my name's going to be applied to it, I'm going to subscribe to the legal criteria. I happen to think it's a beautiful project, and from what I'm seeing, your variances -- I don't want to use the word minimal, but they're certainly not substantial. I've heard at least one described to me -- it's 20 feet that is not encroaching, and then 11 levels of parking that does encroach; I got that. I haven't heard the other four reasons explaining to me why they're -- 171 use the word minimalistic for right now. I mean, I haven't heard the loading bay described to me as to why -- unless it's a mathematical computation you're saying he got wrong. I heard that he couldn't add two plus two, which I thought was a little gruff but -- Mr. Echemendia: He was exaggerating. I'll walkyou through the six criteria. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Mr. Echemendia: But hopefully, we can get to a constructive exercise where, aside from the legalistic aspect, I think -- I would be hopeful that you're -- and we're comfortable with the legalistic aspect that we would be addressing what's good for the City and good for the urban environment vis-a-vis the site. Commissioner Sarnoff. You know, stick to the legal because I think at this stage of the proceedings, you are -- you should just put to this Commission the criteria as to why you didn't create the hardship, why the hardship is not a self-imposed hardship. I can go through it if you want, but -- Mr. Echemendia: No, no. I'd be happy -- Commissioner Sarnoff. -- I think you know. Mr. Echemendia: -- to do that. The setback variances lets its -- incidentally, it's only for the ramp, everything else is met, and you understood that. It's just the ramp. It's the parking ramp that you have the setback variances on, nothing else. At the pedestrian level, we're okay. City of Miami Page 145 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. What is the issue with the parking ramp? Mr. Echemendia: And that's what I'm going to go into and why it's constricted and it can't be any smaller, otherwise you don't have a functioning parking garage. All three setback variances were approved by the Zoning Board. Hardship is a two-part analysis satisfying the objectives of the SD-5, which promotes high-rise, and doing so on a lot at least 30 percent smaller than similarly situated lots on Brickell. The variance standard, approved if not contrary to the public interest where conditions peculiar to the property literal application of the Zoning Code would result in an unnecessary and undue hardship to the property. Criteria in Section 1903.2 of the Code refers to special conditions, whether special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land and not applicable to other lands in the same zoning district. Let's go through that a little bit. The lot size is smaller than other SD-5 lots on Brickell. We respectfully disagree with Planning's characterization of the lot size. This lot size is at least 30 percent smaller than similarly situated in the same -- lots in the same zoning district. And let's -- we passed out -- have we passed it out? We passed out a MyHome. gov printout that depicts, Commissioner Sarnoff, which I think you may have in front of you -- it's in black and white and the delineations are in red. I'm sorry. 171 give you mine. Do we have an extra one? It's important, Marc, because it really does show how much smaller this lot is than all of the other lots in the SD-5. Ours is that little rectangular lot that is colored in in red, and the rest are the large lots, the building that is objecting -- it's the only building that is objecting is on the other side of 10th Street. I would submit -- and that building, incidentally, is more than three times the size of 888 Brickell; lot -- parcel 1109 is 47,794 square feet, and lot 1110 is the square that's next to it, which is similarly sized. So we do have special conditions. The packet that we handed out has a summary of the lot sizes. It is in the record. Our lot is approximately 22,000 square feet. The other lots for projects on Brickell range between 29,988, when -- which is 1201 Brickell, up to 212,000 square feet. The lot dimensions are 124 feet by 180 feet, therefore making the lot 50 percent deeper than it is wide, which creates the circulation issue for the parking because it is a narrower lot as opposed to a square -shaped lot. As a side note -- and the 500 Brickell, which is 442, 000-square foot lot, received a rear yard variance for the required accessory structures in both the north and south side of the street, and their lot is substantially similar to ours. That is, of course, in the Brickell area and in the district. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I need to object. The fact that somebody else got a variance has nothing to do with the merits of this particular case, and I'd like to object on the record because -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Your objection's on the record. You may proceed. Mr. Echemendia: The conditions -- another criteria is the conditions do not result from actions of the petitioner. And again, as we stated, the lot was not subdivided or otherwise reduced in size by the petitioner. The SD-5 -- and Tucker, please permit me -- let me -- rather than interrupt as I go through my presentation, why don't you write some notes and then you can bring it up -- Mr. Gibbs: I have to put the object -- Mr. Echemendia: -- as part of the rebuttal. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I need to object when -- I'll just say objection, but I need to make my objection known for the court reporter so that it is shown in the record thatl objected to that particular item, andl thinkl have that right. Mr. Echemendia: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: Not trying to disrupt; I just want to make my objection known. City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Echemendia: The lot was not subdivided or otherwise reduced in size by the petitioner. I think what's important there is when our client acquired the property in 1984, you did not have the SD-5 zoning district in place. Andl would like, a little further down the road at some point, for Lourdes and/or Orlando -- I think Lourdes -- I hate to date her, but she may have been here at the time and certainly knows what was in place at the time if she -- Commissioner Sarnoff. She was in -- Mr. Echemendia: -- wasn't around. I'm sorry? Commissioner Sarnoff. -- kindergarten. Mr. Echemendia: Fair enough, fair enough. The literal interpretation of provisions deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district and works an unnecessary and undue hardship. As noted, other similarly situated lots are at least 30 percent larger than this lot. Another point is satisfying the Zoning Code requirements for the zoning district, which is SD-5. We believe we -- and we need to meet the intent of that zoning district. The -- Section 605.1 of the -- which is SD-5, reads, "This district is one of the special and substantial public interests because of its prime location on Brickell along the bay front and the Miami River, close to and visible from the CBD (Central Business District) and Biscayne Bay and its importance to the economic well-being of the City as a prestigious high-rise office district housing banking, finance, international trade and other professional office uses." So we must build consistent with the SD-5. Keep this in mind in that it is promoting and requires high-rise office towers. If we met the setback requirements, we could only provide 88 parking spaces, which would only permit a building of 46, 000 square feet. We would submit to you that that is not a high-rise office tower. We currently have a seven -story building that is 46,000 square feet. Why do we believe that's important? Because if we are limited to the as -of -right, including the liner with 88 spaces and 46,000 square feet, we believe it would impose an inordinate burden on the property owner unless the requested variances are approved. Granting the variance request conveys the same treatment -- and this is another one of the criteria -- to this property as other properties in the same district. As noted, other similarly situated lots are at least 30 percent larger than this property and the narrow rectangular shape of this property makes the parking configuration difficult, if not impossible. Minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land -- it has to be the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land. And again, I emphasize the reasonable use of the land. A 46,000-square-foot building which currently exists today and filing for an application as of right under the Code that would only allow up to 46,000 without the variances because of the rectangular shape of the lot and the fact that you cannot otherwise without the variances get the parking pedestal in there, we believe does not allow us the reasonable use of the land. This is the minimum variance -- and incidentally, I think Tucker will argue that the 46,000-square-foot building that's currently there is evidence that -- of reasonable use of the land. Folks, that building is seven stories. It is unoccupied. It doesn't have a single tenant. Why? It is underdeveloped relative to what is currently in the area. I would submit, arguably, obsolete in light of the as -built environment in the Brickell area. This is the minimum variance that will allow both parking and traffic circulation in the parking garage. If this variance is not granted, there will not be enough room to park cars. The required turning radii restrict the geometry of the parking garage to provide for safe ingress and egress, so we can't shrink the circulation circle, and we can't meet the requirements without the setback variances and the liner. Requesting the variances on the short dimension to provide safe traffic circulation. Number five, parking in this district is required to be enclosed. That's Section 605.3.2(8) of the Code. Number six, all setback variances are for the parking pedestal only. Sorry to be repetitive. The tower itself meets required setbacks. Minimum -- the minimum variance necessary -- this is the minimum variance necessary because only requesting the var -- because we're only requesting a variance to meet traffic circulation requirements in the garage, not requesting it for the tower. The ground level on loth Street, we have arcade protection over the retail area. Section 605.5(2) is -- refers to roofed shelters City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 permitted and exempted from yard and open space requirements. Number six, the variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and not injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to the public welfare. And Commissioners, I promise you I will take another minute or two. I'm almost there. In the SD-5, there is actually, interestingly, a maximum setback, and that maximum setback on loth Street is 20 feet. Why? Because from a pedestrian standpoint, you want the buildings closer to the sidewalks. You don't want them set back 30 feet, 25 feet, et cetera. That's in Section 605.8.3 of the Code. This means that, according to the Code, the setback must be between 15 and 20 feet, but no more than 20. Thus, the reduction in the setback is consistent. The goal is to have the city pedestrian environment -- a city pedestrian environment with retail, restaurant, and similar uses inviting pedestrians. Let's talk about the parking a little bit because that's really what's driving all of this, and Commissioner, I know that that's been a big issue for you all along. We've tried to do our best -- in fact, in the SD-5 district, it permits a reduction of ten percent for the parking because of the proximity to public transportation, but you have expressed a concern regarding reducing the number of parking spaces, so we have not availed ourselves of that prediction -- of that provision, I'm sorry. Right now we are providing 286 spaces where 273 are required. If we were to invoke the ten percent reduction provision, we would be providing 200 -- or would be required 246 parking spaces, 40 in excess of those proposed. We are currently not invoking that and are providing instead 13 spaces more than is required without invoking that. The -- and there was a lot of back and forth at the Zoning Board as to your appointee, Brett, who's a very bright young man, andl commend you on that appointment; loved the project; however, felt that the variance on loth, he would rather -- actually, the -- didn't like the variance on loth and suggested that the liner be removed, and what happens if the liner is removed, which is a requirement, and that's why we say that this isn't self-created. We're put in this predicament because your staff wants us to have a liner, and because of that, you know, we're in this Gordian knot where if we provide the liner, we have to request the variances; if we remove the liner, there is an aesthetic issue. Your Planning staff rather have the -- want the liner. They'd rather us put -- provide the liner. Internal design review, all of the boards, all of the architects want the liner to be in place. If we remove the liner and therefore remove the setback on loth, which, as I understand it -- and -- you know, Tucker will object, but he's -- Mr. Gibbs: I'm going to object because I think -- Mr. Echemendia: Object to what? Mr. Gibbs: -- what he's doing is he's hurting his own client and their relationship with my clients by continually bringing up issues that are not subject to this public hearing. Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. I was referring to -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Go ahead. Mr. Echemendia: -- Brett Berlin at the Zoning Board and the issue that he raised with respect to loth Street. Can I do that without objection? Okay. The removal of the liner reduces the spaces by 11. We would remove the setback variance on loth. We don't have any setback variances on the loading bays; they're not even before you. We would be providing three loading bays where three are required, and then all you're talking about is the setback variance on the west and the setback variance on the north. The building to the north didn't object to that setback variance, and the west is a minimal setback relative to the alley. So now you don't have the setback on loth. The removal of the liner -- and then what we could also do possibly, Commissioner, is we can add a 12th story of parking. Now you don't have the setback on loth, you don't have the variance relative to the loading bays. You have two minor variances to try to accommodate this building because of the circulatory hardship -- now you're going to get objection from your staff on removing the liner, but we believe that our architect could do a curtain wall that really does almost get you there, and then removing the liner and adding a 12th story, we're then at 295 parking spaces with an excess -- with an addition of 12 spaces. We believe that is a wonderful City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 compromise. We would urge you to consider it. It doesn't have to be done today, but we believe this is an important project. We have spent a lot of time on the design. We look forward to continuing discussions with Mr. Gibbs and his client, but let me summarize the issue of the hardship for a minute. This lot is 30 percent smaller than similarly situated lots and is a narrow rectangle, 50 percent longer than it is wide, so not enough room to circulate traffic and park cars in the garage. Thus, the requested setback variances are necessary to provide safe traffic circulation and required parking in the garage. Now -- andl keep hearing that, you know, we -- the -- and I've concluded, but let me just -- some finishing remarks, andl would like to re -- have -- reserve a little time for surrebuttal to the extent thatl have to based on some comments that Tucker makes. They filed an untimely appeal. We went through a rigorous process. And if you guys don't want any surrebuttal, that's fine. I hope that we can work things out and come back, so please. A rigorous process, approval by all the boards, approval by the Zoning Board An appeal gets filed with no appearance, no opportunity to interact. It was articulated to us that the main concern -- and this -- I'm not referring to Tucker, so Tucker, please do not object -- articulated to us through other people, through various sources that the main concerns were the loading bays -- we've addressed the loading bays -- and the setback on 10th. Now we've addressed the setback on 10th where we don't need a setback variance. We provide more parking spaces for Commissioner Sarnoff, we remove the liner; we do a nice curtain wall; the building looks nice, and -- Chair Sanchez: But you would still need two more -- you would be requesting two variances. Mr. Echemendia: Just the two, the little alley and the one on the north that the building on the north didn't object to, et cetera. Now we were criticized for approaching the folks in the building. We know tenants in the building that are former partners of mine in my law firm. They didn't understand why the building was appealed -- why the variances were appealed. Mr. Gibbs -- Mr. Gibbs: I'm going to object to that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Echemendia: That's -- go ahead -- Mr. Gibbs: It has nothing to do with the six standards or anything that's before this Board. Whether he could meet with my clients or representatives has nothing to do with this. Mr. Echemendia: You can object. Let me finish, please. The -- now it's been -- if, in fact, the opposition is in good -- is acting in good faith, andl don't even want to go there because I want to be afforded the opportunity if we come back and it gets ugly, we will raise some other issues as to who's being represented, et cetera, et cetera, but if in fact they are acting in good faith, I believe that we have addressed all of the issues that were raised as concerns. And therefore, the opposition continues, we would question whether in fact they are proceeding in good faith and have articulated, you know, good faith efforts relative to addressing these concerns. That is all have to say. Commissioner, I would implore you to give us an opportunity to at least work out -- work through your concerns. I have faith -- I have the utmost respect for Mr. Gibbs, andl am hopeful that we can get there, and that believe that we have addressed at least concerns that have been articulated to us by other folks and hopefully we can get there. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Tucker, and hopefully, we could put a close to this today. Mr. Gibbs: Boy, I hope we can put a close to this, too. Chair Sanchez: I thought you said this wasn't Kubik. Mr. Gibbs: Hey, I thought it wasn't Kubik either. I thought it was a very simple issue of standards and the application of standards to a specific set of facts. I do object to surrebuttal. City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 I've never even asked for it, and I've never gotten it in this city, so if he gets it, boy, you all are going to open up the floodgates. Chair Sanchez: He wasn't going to get it. Mr. Gibbs: I didn't think so. A couple of issues. I want to object on the record to negotiating variances at the Commission. I think this is absurd. Number one, to get rid of the liner unit -- a liner unit's a requirement of your SD-5. I don't think you even have the authority to get rid of it. But aside from that, I want to remind you all of something, that this project is a Major Use Special Permit. No one's ever talked about that. And they've asked for bonuses. They've asked for square foot bonuses on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. So my question to you is, you know, this postage stamp property; it's all limited and we can't fit this in -- yeah, and they're asking for bonuses. Of course, they're not asking for bonuses now. They've left this zoning variant -- let the zoning variance sit alone, butl want you all to understand that back there there's a Major Use Special Permit and their height bonus -- there're floor area bonuses in there. The gentleman said they bought the property in 1984. Well, gee, that's a long time to figure out what you can do with this property. Andl appreciate their problems with it, but they've had the problems for over 20 years. And if this is what they can do and this is all they can do, I'm concerned. I'm also concerned about the issue -- aside from the personal attacks on an expert witness from another expert, which I find incredible andl'm offended by it because I've never seen a professional insult another professional like this, and take exception to it, and want to tell you why I take exception to it. I take exception to it because it's a deliberate misrepresentation of what my expert said. Excuse me. Mr. Borges: He should just learn how to add. That's all. Mr. Echemendia: No. Reinaldo. Chair Sanchez: Hey, hey. Come on. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to be able to have my rebuttal. Commissioner Sarnoff. I -- let me give you some advice that Judge Patterson once gave to me. He's a judge in the southern district of New York. He said to me, not everything do you need to say; it's been taken in by the bench. Mr. Gibbs: I understand that. Andl wanted to say it partly because Mr. Alvarez is a friend of mine. I don't like seeing my friends getting insulted but I also want to tell you -- Commissioner Sarnoff. And nobody up here liked it either, Tucker. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Andl also want to say that looking at what the expert said, I'm going to explain to you what Mr. Alvarez was trying to say, which I want you all to understand, andl'm going to have Mr. Alvarez get up again and explain something else only because of the record and the hardship issue. It goes to the hardship issue. The expert spoke of their width and the fact that my expert didn't get it. My expert got it. My expert described to you what is called in the trade a single tray parking system. What was described to you by the expert was a double tray, two sets of parking. This project can be built -- and Mr. Alvarez will come up here in a second and testify that a project -- this project can be built with a single tray of parking with no variance, which means they do have the reasonable use of this property without the variance and they do not have a hardship. So I wanted to put that in the record not because my client was -- my expert was insulted, but because my expert is right. Reasonable use of the land is what they're talking about. Reasonable use of the land is what is allowed in the Zoning Code, not what the project -- what the developer wants to build In addition, again, he bought the property with the knowledge of the size. The circulation issue will be dealt with by Mr. Alvarez. SD-5 -- City of Miami Page 150 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 they talk about the hardship. Well, they get the parking bonuses. That's not much of a hardship. They talk about the fact that the burden on the property owner was financial. That is not legally cognizable as a hardship in a variance. His financial hardship is not a hardship. And finally, the liner requirement has created this problem. Look at the Auerbach case. The Auerbach case dealt with a liner issue, andl believe that the liner wasn't even required; it was a choice. The fact is, even in that situation, where the variance was granted, the Third District said no. You're not going to get the variance because of a requirement by the City. I'd like to have Mr. Alvarez get up -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Gibbs: -- here and talk about -- Chair Sanchez: We've been very lenient. Mr. Alvarez -- Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: -- come up; short presentation, and folks, we're done. All right. Mr. Alvarez: Very quickly. Thank you for the time. What I understand from the notes from Mr. Gibbs that Mr. Borges described what's called a double tray. That's pretty much what you have at the Oak Street garage. You go up one ramp, you go up the other ramp; you go up the next one and so forth. He said, if I'm correct, 18 plus 18 plus 22 times 2. That's parking stall plus parking stall plus aisle times two. What I had described to you was also entirely possible; a single tray. In other words, parking stall plus parking stall plus aisle and simply a ramp to go from one level to the next. Nobody likes that; it's not efficient, but it is possible. Is that enough? Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner, I just need just two -- three things for the record, and it's going to be short and sweet. He just misstated some things for the record. Chair Sanchez: That's it. We're done. I've had enough of this. Mr. Echemendia: I'm sorry. Orlando -- Chair Sanchez: We're done. Mr. Echemendia: -- you need to -- Chair Sanchez: We're done. Mr. Echemendia: -- correct the record on the pedestal -- Chair Sanchez: We're closing it; coming back -- Mr. Echemendia: -- on the liner. Chair Sanchez: -- to the Commission. I'm not going to allow this to continue any further. It's just -- go ahead. Mr. Echemendia: The record needs to -- Ms. Bru: Mr. Chairman, I guess you do want to hear from your Planning Department, I guess. City of Miami Page 151 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: Absolutely. Ms. Bru: Okay. Chair Sanchez: And that's it. Planning Department, and then we're going to bring it for a vote, vote up, vote down, whatever we want to do. I loved the way you opened up this is not a Kubik and it ends up being worse than a Kubik. All right. Mr. Lavernia: This application was presented for variances; one variance for interior side setback requesting 15 feet; one variance for a street side setback south for ten feet, six inches, and a variance for rear setback for four feet and four inches. The Planning Department recommend denial of the application as presented finding mainly that there was no hardship to justify the requested variances. Chair Sanchez: All right. Let's go. Come on, folks. Mr. Lavernia: And that they will not need a Major Use for affordable housing. What they will need is a Class II The design review process will be the same as a Major Use, but as a Class II. Chair Sanchez: Class II. Mr. Lavernia: It will be approved administrative. Commissioner Sarnoff. Why doesn't this get a MUSP? I mean, why -- inadequate parking spaces, inad -- why doesn't it get a MUSP? Mr. Lavernia: No. They don't need a MUSP. Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah, but why? I'm just curious. Mr. Lavernia: Because they are under the threshold that -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Under -- Mr. Lavernia: -- triggers a MUSP. Chair Sanchez: All right. Any questions? Commissioner Sarnoff. Yeah. How do we know if we were to even -- inclined to grant this that this particular building would be built? How would we know that? Whereas, in a MUSP situation, we know what we're doing. Chair Sanchez: Not really. Mr. Lavernia: Yeah. The variance is approved per plans on file, so they cannot modin, those plans. Commissioner Sarnoff. So it attaches to this building? Mr. Lavernia: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Chair Sanchez: All right. Any further questions? If not, it comes back to the Commission. City of Miami Page 152 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Echemendia: Liner's not required. Can somebody say -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Echemendia: -- that for the record? Chair Sanchez: Are liners required? Mr. Lavernia: No, it's not. Chair Sanchez: It's not required. Mr. Lavernia: Not by Code. It's not required -- Chair Sanchez: Not by Code. Mr. Lavernia: -- by Code. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Lavernia: It was part of the Planning recommendation. Chair Sanchez: I think the arguments have been made on both sides; it's coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff. Commissioner Sarnoff. I guess you're seeing right now, I think, a law of unintended consequences, which is the liner situations. And actually, the Mayor andl have spoken about this, and there are a number of new liner uses that may be coming on line very shortly that don't require -- and maybe we don't require, as a Planning Department, habitability in those particular uses. I just want to say for the recordl happen to agree with a couple of things, and I'm just going to put my thoughts on the record. Number one, I think you should have to exhaust your administrative remedies, andl don't think you should come before this Board without having gone before the Zoning Board. I don't -- I think that exactly what we're seeing tonight could have been an issue that could have been hashed out at the Zoning Board, and subsequent to that, whatever conversations needed to be had could have been had and possibly 60, 70 percent of the time, you don't have to come before this Commission and visit us at 7 o'clock after we've taken a Kubik. Secondly, I can't believe you would ever discuss settlement discussions in - - before this tribunal. It's inappropriate, and you know, I just want to say for the recordl thought that was far overreaching, and that's a nice way to put it. You know, you sit up here and - - this is Brickell. This is not Biscayne Boulevard. This is not MiMo (Miami Modern). This is where the height and the density belongs. This is where we should be putting the height and the density, and this is where we should be putting the large buildings, and this is where we should be putting as many of the good-looking buildings as we possibly can. I was very persuaded by Tucker's arguments, andl think he's giving a correct rendition of the law, but there also was a proposition in law called de minimis, when something is so small, when something is such a small variation that you don't necessarily have to fit hook, line, and sinker into that shoe. So sometimes the size eight shoe goes into a size -- an eight and a half foot may go into an eight shoe, andl think this might be one of those scenarios. You know, based on the record that I've heard, I'm inclined to grant or to deny the appeal, which I think is the correct procedural thing, and to allow this to go forward However, it's late, and what I'm going to do is make a motion for a continuance, and that way I think we can all digest this. I want to look at the Herrera case, and then I want to look at the Auerbach case one more time, andl just don't want to make a decision based on maybe my spirit at 7 o'clock at night having taken a Kubik. So if my Commissioners will join with me, I'm going to ask for a continuance of this for the next City of Miami Page 153 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commission meeting. Chair Sanchez: And when it comes back, it's just -- Commissioner Sarnoff. We'll just -- Chair Sanchez: -- for a vote. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- vote on it. Chair Sanchez: Okay. So -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Sanchez: -- there's a motion to continue the item. When -- the date? Commissioner Sarnoff. June -- Ms. Thompson: June 26. Chair Sanchez: All right. The item will come back to us on June 28? Ms. Thompson: Twenty -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Six. Ms. Thompson: -- six. Chair Sanchez: Twenty-six -- Ms. Thompson: Twenty-six. Chair Sanchez: -- for a vote and only for a vote. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, say "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition having the same right. It passes. All right. So we'll see you for a vote. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you, folks. Chair Sanchez: All right, folks. Mr. Echemendia: Appreciate it. PZ.16 06-00799xt RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH ATTACHMENT(S) APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, REQUIRING CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, GRANTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON MAY 24, 2007, RESOLUTION NO. R-07-0289, AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE ORIGINAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION (06-00799xc) AS MODIFIED BY RESOLUTION NO. R-07-0289, WHICH INCREASED THE City of Miami Page 154 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 SQUARE FOOTAGE AS DESCRIBED THEREIN, WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1603-27 NORTHWEST 7TH AVENUE AND 662 NORTHWEST 20TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 06-00799xt Extension of Time Request.PDF 06-00799xt Analysis.PDF 06-00799xt Letter of Intent.PDF 06-00799xt Application & Supporting Docs.PDF 06-00799xt Plans.PDF 06-00799xt CC Zoning Map.pdf 06-00799xt CC Aerial Map.pdf 06-00799xt ZB Reso.pdf 06-00799xt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-00799xt Exhibit A.pdf 06-00799xt CC Fact Sheet.pdf 06-00799xt-Submittal -Map 1.pdf 06-00799xt-Submittal- Map 2.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1603-27 NW 7th Avenue and 662 NW 20th Street [Commissioner Angel Gonzalez - District 1] APPLICANT(S): Santiago D. Echemendia, Esquire and Bob de la Fuente, Esquire, on behalf of Camillus House, Inc. FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the original application. ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on May 12, 2008 by a vote of 5-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will approve an extension of time to the original Camillus House application. Motion by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0289 Vice Chair Spence -Jones: I guess we'd like to officially -- we're going to address PZ.16, which is the Camillus House item. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): Good morning. For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. This is an extension of time for the previously approved project. The Planning Department recommend approval with conditions. The Zoning Board recommend also approval with the same conditions that the Planning Department request. Commissioner Gonzalez: I'll move -- City of Miami Page 155 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Lavernia: Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez: -- PZ.16. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Well, I can't second it, so -- but I do -- Commissioner Regalado: Second. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. -- have a comment on it, though. First of all, do you want to put anything on the record, sir, before I -- Bob de la Fuente: Yes. I -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- make a comment? Mr. De la Fuente: -- just for the record, Bob de la Fuente, with law offices at 1441 Brickell. I am here on behalf of the applicant. We thank the Commission and staff for their help and support with this item, and we are here for an extension of time. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. Thank you. What -- only thing that I want to really say on it -- on the Camillus House, and -- where's the Camillus family? Dr. Ahr and the whole crew over there, Peter. As you know, I've been a big supporter of Camillus House from day one and they've been a big supporter of everything that's happening at least in my district. The only thing that really wanted to really make sure that brought to their attention is two things that -- one of them I know they've addressed already, which was the look and feel of the building on the bottom part, the commercial/retail portion of it. I wanted to make it very clear to the Camillus House family -- we've had this discussion -- that I want -- I do not want us to create on 7th Avenue any institutionalized look or feel. Part of 7th Avenue is supposed to have a commercial look and feel, so I'm hoping -- I did see the changes on the overall plans, but I want to be assured today that that's going to be the case; that we will have the retail/commercial look and feel on the bottom portion of this new development that's going to be happening on 7th Avenue? Mr. De la Fuentes: Yes, that is the case. And we do have color renderings for you if you'd like to see them now. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Well, I think you should submit it into the record so that we're clear on it and also the other Commissioners. I don't know if the other Commissioners have had the opportunity also to see it, too. Okay. And again, I'm a strong supporter of Camillus House. I just really didn't -- did not want to create a scenario where we would have this institutionalized look and feel. And the other part of it was the community oversight board. One of the biggest issues that we talked about going back and forth -- and as you know, there was some opposition about the project happening in the very beginning. I really want to make sure that that community oversight or community board that we talked about, which include people from the Overtown area and other support services, participating in what's happening in this building. I'm not really sure, you know, the update or the status on that. Are these meetings happening on a regular? Paul Ahr: Paul Ahr, resident of Camillus, 336 Northwest 5th Street. Commissioner, we've had several meetings with the Oversight Board. We basically suspended them because we have not executed the land swap with the State and UM (University of Miami). That is expected to close on a week from tomorrow, and basically, at that point, then we're going to start them up again. We've had great participation, but we know how important it is. It's very important to us also, so probably, in the middle of the summer, we'll bring them back once we have control of the site. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Okay. And again, Dr. Ahr, you guys have been wonderful, so this is City of Miami Page 156 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 not any knock on you. I'm just learning, as I sit on this dais, that there's a lot of things that are said that a lot of times are not followed through, so I just want to make sure that if we make a commitment to the residents and the constituents, at least of my district, that we follow through on those. So the two things -- I see the plans, the revisions. I just want to make sure it was submitted into the record and that actually happens. And I want to make sure -- now I understand why the community meetings have not been happening -- Mr. Ahr: Right. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- so I'm assuming that they will pick up as soon as we get past this issue. I want to thank the Chairman for taking this item out of order because I do recognize that it was supposed to happen later on. I appreciate that, Chairman, for doing that, andl appreciate for you -- your patience on this issue. Mr. Ahr: By the way, I think the look looks a lot better with your input. It's -- it looked like the Federal Reserve Bank before and now it looks like Merrick Park, so hopefully, everybody will be happy with it. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Well, that's what we want to have happen, and a artist -- Mr. Ahr: Okay. You did a good job -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: -- in Overtown. Mr. Ahr: -- on calling it to our attention. Thank you. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Thank you so much. Chair Sanchez: All right. Do we have a motion on this item? Vice Chair Spence -Jones: We had a motion and a second. It's already passed Chair Sanchez: Okay. There's a motion and it's a resolution. Okay. You had an opportunity to state it on the record? Okay. Any further discussion on the item? Hearing no discussion on the item, it's a resolution. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries, 5/0. Thank you so much. City of Miami Page 157 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR MANUEL A. DIAZ DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER ANGEL GONZALEZ DISTRICT 2 COMMISSIONER MARC DAVID SARNOFF D2.1 08-00525 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TWO LARGE LIGHTED ONE BROADWAY SIGNS ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING NAMED ONE BROADWAY LOCATED AT 1451 S. MIAMI AVENUE. DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THESE TWO LARGE LIGHTED SIGNS RECEIVED APPROVAL AND WHAT PUBLIC PROCESS, IF ANY, TOOK PLACE. DISCUSSION REGARDING SIGN COMPATIBILITY AND CONFORMITY WILL RESULT. DIRECTION TO THE ADMINISTRATION MAY RESULT. 08-00525 Email.pdf 08-00525-Submittal-Commissioner Sarnoff.pdf DISCUSSED Direction by Commissioner Sarnoff to the City Manager to request an investigation and provide a report to the City Commission within 60 days detailing how the analysis and approval of the One Broadway sign was conducted along with the approval of the Major Use Special Permit (MUSP); whether the sign conforms with Section 1305 of the Zoning Code, and whether an analysis of the sign compliance with Section 1305 could be conducted at the present time; further, directing the City Manager to look for solutions to the current sign located on One Broadway; and directing the City Attorney to provide a report on the City's options regarding the sign, and whether the City was misguided in its initial approval of the sign. Chair Sanchez: So we'll go with Commissioner Sarnoff. You're recognized on D2.1, which is One Broadway signs. How long is that presentation going to be, Marc? Commissioner Sarnoff. It's a PowerPoint presentation. Chair Sanchez: Yeah. How long? Commissioner Sarnoff. Probably about three minutes. Let me just -- as she's walking up to the mike, I'll just describe it to you. This is the situation known as One Broadway. For those of you that have seen in the Brickell area on South Miami Avenue, there's a building known as One Broadway that has a sign that is illuminated -- presently illuminated on the side facingl-95; has been illuminated on both sides. I think it sporadically is illuminated. I'll give you the short and the long of it. The short and the long of it is that this Commission never got to see exactly what this sign looked like or would look like in the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). The only notification that this Commission had was language that said a Class II Permit could come before this Commission -- could be issued. And in fact, a Class II Permit was issued, and a very, very large sign was placed up there. Anything this Commission saw photographically did not City of Miami Page 158 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 have -- okay. This is what this Commission saw, Park Place at Brickell. You'll see that there's no sign placed for the public hearing, either side. Now what they did do is they sent out Class II Special Permit and no one in the affected areas was noted of any kind of permit. Andl guess it's -- by the Code, they don't have to be; is that correct? Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Commissioner, my understanding is that process was followed as of the time of that application. Commissioner Sarnoff. So no one in the neighborhood was on notice that any type of signage, let alone illuminated signs, were going to be placed on this building. You'll see the approvals -- the process of approval for the wall sign, yet nobody in this Commission, when you passed this MUSP, ever saw the sign, the size, the illumination, the type of illumination, the looms, anything like that. The one to the right juxtaposed on the One Broadway is what you saw. None of you ever had the opportunity to say, "Wow. I'm approving signage in the City ofMiami. " They did have a small passage that said poss -- or -- I think -- what'd it say, Class II Permit -- Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): For a sign (INAUDIBLE) guides and standards. Mr. Hernandez: Go ahead. Commissioner Sarnoff. You want to go up and describe it? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. As part of the MUSP, what the Major Use Special Permit does is it approves all these subordinate special permits that are required to build a project. And typically -- this property is zoned SD-5 -- every -- the signs in SD-5 require separate Class II Permits. What many developers do, like Mary Brickell Village and -- I mean, even Bayside, they get sign guides and standards pre -approved for their project so that as they begin to get tenants for their retail and restaurant spaces, each tenant doesn't have to come in for a separate Class II Permit for their sign. What the Park Place developer did was include a generic Class II for design guides and standards to be approved by the Planning Department so that once that was approved, the individual tenants would not have to come in for separate Class II Permits. This sign is -- falls into the signs over 50 feet category, and l think that's why they came in for a separate Class II for this one because it wasn't listed in their MUSP. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. No City Commissioner ever saw the fact that there was going to be this huge, over 50-foot illuminated sign "One Broadway." Ms. Slazyk: Right. That's why they got a separate Class II for it because it wasn't in their MUSP. Commissioner Sarnoff. And in saying that, no citizen ever received notice that there was going to be an over 50-foot "One Broadway" illuminated sign. Ms. Slazyk: Right. The notice was not required by the Code. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. So what you have, to me, is something that was able to slip in. You'll see right here -- that's as it was built in the building process, and you'll see no sign. I think if you go to the next one -- again, the Yellow Pages -- now you see the sign being erected. And l just think what happened here certainly goes to our most recent EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) notice argument, where we were talking about people not getting notice. I think it's just wrong that no Commissioner got to see the fact that we're starting to put names on buildings. And if every building were allowed to be named, number one, it would look horrible, and number two, it's unfair to its neighbors. People -- the reason that the -- I guess it's the eastside facing sign -- has been sometimes turned off is as a result of complaints by neighbors. The fact that they're illuminating into somebody else's high-rise building is inappropriate. This City of Miami Page 159 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 City did nothing to protect its neighboring high-rise buildings. And you know, I'd like the City Manager to come back and try to come back with a rectified issue with this 'cause I just don't see how proper notice and public policy was followed. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, I agree that maybe we do need to improve the notice on this aspect of signage, especially dealing with the number of high-rises that we have now. However, when this was done, it did follow the process as of that date. My understanding with respect to the One Broadway is that the sign that faces Brickell Avenue to that side has been off and the owner of the building has agreed to keep it off and we're working with the building owner in order to try to place a timer on the sign that faces I-95 so it will turn off at a certain time of the evening. But I think that also when we look at this issue we have to be careful because many of the architectural features of today's buildings, they do contemplate on the higher floors or at the top -- maybe not the sign, but other features that do have lighting. Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I don't -- Mr. Hernandez: I believe we have other buildings that do have that today. Commissioner Sarnoff. I mean, I -- we went up and down Brickell, and with the exception of having a gymnasium across the entire, you know, site, there really is nothing else. Nobody puts wording, signs, depictions, artwork, nothing's up there. The only person to have a sign in this entire neighborhood is One Broadway. Mr. Hernandez: Yeah. Commissioner Sarnoff. Andl think it was a little bit of artifice that got it there. I know that no Commissioner had notice of it, other than a small little print that said Class II Permit for sign. I know that no person on -- or no affected citizen had the opportunity to even complain about this, and you know, it -- this just exacerbates what we went through with the EAR amendment, which is people aren't getting notice. And you know, at a very minimum, you know, Mr. Manager, I hope you would come back rectifying the Code that allowed that to happen, number one, so it doesn't happen again, but I just don't think that we've done everything we can do for the citizens and for the affected property owners with regard to the illumination of the sign. Mr. Hernandez: Well, with respect to the One Broadway, I think that today the sign is legal. I think that we can work with the owner. We have shut down the illumination on one side and we can probably control the illumination on the other side, andl agree with you that, prospectively, we need to fine-tune and provide a better notice as to what's actually going to be done of the sign, the letter of the sizes, and whether they have illumination. Andl agree that when that was done, none of those elements were provided to anybody at that time. Commissioner Sarnoff. Madam City Attorney, do I have the authority to make a request to ask staff to bring the sign permit back to the Commission at a public hearing; let the neighborhood have a proper notice and look into how the MUSP was approved so that we can decide if this sign conforms with the design review guidelines in Section 1305? Chair Sanchez: I don't think -- Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Okay. Chair Sanchez: -- you can do that. Ms. Bru: You have the right to request an investigation as to any of -- any individual department director's conduct so -- or a particular matter. I mean, if you want to investigate how this happened and what happened, you can do that. City of Miami Page 160 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I'm trying to understand how this fit a 1305 analysis. I mean, I'm trying to figure out how this fit with the context of the neighborhood. Ms. Bru: Well, then you could -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Because -- Ms. Bru: -- request an investigation as to what steps were undertaken in connection with the issuance of this permit. Commissioner Sarnoff. And that could be reported back to the Commission? Ms. Bru: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Do I need to make a motion for that or one Commissioner can --? Chair Sanchez: That's a directive to the City Manager and there is no motion needed. Mr. Hernandez: I believe you've made the directive already, Commissioner. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff. Andl want to make sure that in that criteria that you decide whether a 1305 analysis was done or arguably could have been -- or arguably can be done right now with regard to the sign itself. Mr. Hernandez: Okay. Go ahead and put that on the record. Ms. Slazyk: The Class II -- remember, the MUSP and Class II both use 1305. In the actual Class II that was issued in August of '06, there were findings that the signs were appropriate in scale and size as per the Zoning Ordinance because it met all the size limitations, and it also -- there was a finding that with regard to criteria in 1305 of the Code, the ordinance -- the application has been reviewed and found sufficient. Chair Sanchez: But Lourdes, I think the Commissioner makes a good point on the notice. You know, if you -- we need to correct this now because for whatever sake, if there is another issuance of a Class II Special Permit for another lighting, it's going to be put on a building; that area, you have building abutting buildings, and if you have light on 24 hours a day, you know, it's really an inconvenience for anybody who has to stare at that light constantly on, so it gives us an opportunity now to address this and make sure -- this is a policy matter. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chair Sanchez: It is a policy matter. It's -- Ms. Slazyk: The current Code does not require notice to either adjacent property owners or to the associations when it's a sign, but this Commission could direct an amendment to that. Chair Sanchez: But we could direct -- Ms. Slazyk: Oh, yes. Chair Sanchez: -- because it is an issue -- City of Miami Page 161 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chair Sanchez: -- because, you know, you have individuals that are being affected by -- Mr. Hernandez: Yeah. Chair Sanchez: -- those lights. I mean, it's just like if we passed the murals that we just passed and we said, hey, you know, put light on them 24 hours a day. Mr. Hernandez: Yeah. Commissioner, it's a -- Chair Sanchez: God forbid somebody living next to it who's going to have that light shining in their condo. I mean -- Mr. Hernandez: -- problem that in the past we haven't faced, but now with all the development, all the high-rises that we have, yes, it's something that has to be considered and taken into account. Chair Sanchez: Yeah, but it's not only facing the issue, it's resolving the issue, making sure that three months from now you don't have four or ten or fifteen or thirty residents coming in front of this Commission saying, hey, listen, they put a sign up there and now it's litten [sic] and it's just - - it's a burden on us that we have to put up with it. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, as part of the report that we'll bring back, we'll proffer recommendations as to how to modify the Code in order to resolve the issue of notice and also the fact that you have a chance to approve such signs. Commissioner Sarnoff. But Mr. Manager, I want you to also look for solutions to this sign. Mr. Hernandez: Yes. Commissioner Sarnoff. Andl want to implore you to look for solutions to this sign. Because, you know, to turn around to -- this is the big tax paying part of our district. This is the Brickell crowd. You know, they're the ones that pay the most and get the least, and now you've imposed upon them -- I'm not saying you; I know this predates you; it predates me -- but we're imposing upon them a burden that don't think was ever contemplated, truly contemplated. Andl call it a word trick because in a MUSP, every Commissioner -- you know, you get how many MUSPs? And the District 2 Commissioner, unfortunately, gets the most MUSPs, especially at that time, and they're really looking at generically how the building looks. They're not going into dimensions and they're not reading every fine print, and obviously, this was missed. And I just think there's got to be a solution for this building. Mr. Hernandez: We'll continue to explore that solution, and that will be part of our report. Chair Sanchez: Step one is to make sure that the lights are turned off. That's -- I mean, is it your intent to remove the sign or is it your intent to make sure they're not lit -- the light's not litten [sic] so you don't bother anybody? Mr. Hernandez: Well, I think that, obviously, a partial solution, I think, has been achieved by turning off the lights facing Brickell. The other lights facing I--95, the proposal right now will be to place the timer on it. We could also try to shut those off and then you remove the illumination concern. Chair Sanchez: All right. City of Miami Page 162 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Commissioner Sarnoff. Well, I'd like you to give a report back to me and this Commission -- I'll give you 60 days to tell us plan A, plan B, plan C, and I'd like to hear from the City Attorney what our options are from everything from the notice issue to a 1305 analysis to however this Commission may have been misguided or -- I don't want to use the dupe, but think that, to some extent, they just didn't -- they weren't paying attention to wording -- Mr. Hernandez: Right, and -- Commissioner Sarnoff. -- whereas they were looking at the photograph of what the building would look like. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, during the MUSP process, you're looking at so many details that are, I would say, controlling your attention, and this is more of a detail. Commissioner Sarnoff. Okay. Thank you. D2.2 08-00526 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF THE CITY ADDING A PROCESS TO SUPERIMPOSE A TREE SURVEY (OR A TRANSPARENCY) OVER SUBMITTED SURVEYS IN ORDER TO FOSTER THE PRESERVATION AND HEALTH OF EXISTING TREES. THE GOAL IS TO AVOID CONSTRUCTION CONFLICTS AND THE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING TREE CANOPIES. 08-00526 Email.pdf DISCUSSED Chair Sanchez: All right. Moving on. Next item is adding process to superimpose tree survey. Commissioner Sarnoff. This is a pretty -- Pete, do you think --? Sorry, Mr. Manager. We had talked about this internally. Do you think that your memo will -- Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): I believe that we will handle this -- Commissioner Sarnoff. -- your ADM [sic] --? Mr. Hernandez: -- administratively. It's a question of best practices. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Anido andl totally feel and are committed that that's the proper way to do it. You need to show the existing trees on the site plan and then determine what to do. You have to relocate this one, you have to do -- you have to show how you're handling the conflicts. Commissioner Sarnoff. Right. Just for anybody who's watching TV (Television), the point of -- the point is that many of our plans don't show where the trees are and people are not -- are building regardless of where trees are. And with our new tree ordinance and the good protections that it affords, we are not using best practices, and we're not requiring people to have the trees placed on the plan so that we know if a driveway could be directed somewhere else or a gate could be directed somewhere else versus removal of the tree. And you're saying -- Mr. Hernandez: Right. The -- Commissioner Sarnoff. -- what you're saying is you agree with that and that you could do this internally? City of Miami Page 163 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Hernandez: Right. Unidentified Speaker: Right. Mr. Hernandez: You cannot have -- having a tree survey and having a site plan separate, it doesn't work. Chair Sanchez: It doesn't add up. Mr. Hernandez: You need to be able to have that existing data on your site plan to see what trees are affected and then show the proper action as to how you're going to handle it. This one needs to be relocated, showing where it goes; so when we're reviewing the plans, we know up front what's the impact and we don't run into it when they're constructing. Commissioner Sarnoff. You -- Chair Sanchez: No, no. Commissioner Sarnoff. -- we don't usually let you, but you want to let him just say one word? Bob Powers: Well -- and just -- that's my profession, so part of the problem with a lot of this stuff -- Commissioner Sarnoff. Real brief. Mr. Powers: Real brief. Bob Powers, again. -- is that the City requires people to relocate the trees, but they don't require them to make sure that they survive their move as well because we have a case like that in point where Balans was built. They moved a beautiful oak tree and they literally ripped it right out of the ground, right out of the ground, and it was supposed to be a relocated tree, and that's not how it was treated So that's one of the reasons also for -- Commissioner Sarnoff. It's a little different, Bob. What we're trying to do is we're trying to say that at the time you site your property, you've got to have the trees -- Mr. Powers: I understand that, but that tree should never have been moved. That's a City tree. It was on City -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Mr. Powers: -- property, and they moved it -- Chair Sanchez: Thank you, Bob. Mr. Powers: -- because of a driveway. Chair Sanchez: Okay. Is that --? Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, we'll make sure this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- gets taken care of. It's the proper way to do design and to prepare a set of plans that is complete. Commissioner Sarnoff. I understand the County does employ best practices. City of Miami Page 164 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Mr. Hernandez: DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) does follow those directions, yes. Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. DISTRICT 3 CHAIR JOE SANCHEZ DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO D4.1 08-00536 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION CONCERNING ASSESSMENTS OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 193.503. 08-00536 Cover Memo.pdf DISCUSSED Chair Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized for D4.1. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. One of the main concerns of members of this Commission is the historic properties throughout the City ofMiami, and now we have several actions within the November election in terms of property, and of course, we have the election of the property appraisal [sic], so it is important for the City to take the lead in adjusting the assessment of historic property according to the Florida Statute, specifically the Florida State Statute 193.503, which is very clear, very specific in assessment historic properties. And Madam City Attorney, I think it's important that all of us understand that this is what the State mandates to follow in terms of assessment, but it's not being followed now by the property appraisal office, and it's basically about commercial property listed on the national registry or also in historical district. Could you just give a -- briefly an idea of what -- number one, what can we do? Can we ask you to bring back an ordinance for the City Commission to consider in terms of adjusting our City to the State Statute 193.503? Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Commissioner, one of my colleagues, Maria Chiaro, reminded me that she has been working on something to implement this pursuant to a request made by Commissioner Sarnoff. This is basically a State Statute that authorizes a municipality to adopt an ordinance that would then afford historic properties a certain way of having their taxes assessed. In other words, the property appraiser would have to follow the criteria that is set forth in this statute and assess the property, and it would have to take into consideration only the criteria set forth in the statute, which basically now would be the income produced by the property kind of methodology. Commissioner Regalado: Which is why I placed this on the agenda because we need to be on time before the November election because there are constitutional amendments that refer to different sets of property, waterfront, water -related, by income, and since the new property appraisal [sic] will be sworn in on January 1, we need to have in place this already so we can have a set of guidelines. So I didn't know that Commissioner Sarnoff was -- but think it's a great idea. I think it would solve the problem of people that do own historical properties throughout the City ofMiami because that way, you know, they don't have the issue of trying to City ofMiami Page 165 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 sell the property or -- for -- they cannot afford the property taxes because they've been taxed now as future best use. So when do you think that we can have the --? Ms. Bru: We can prepare this ordinance for first reading at the next Commission meeting of June 12 and second reading at the end of June, and we -- and the important thing is to transmit it to the property appraiser before December 1 also, so we'll have it done at the next couple of meetings. Chair Sanchez: I want to hear from you. Ellen Ugucioni (Planning Department): Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. Ellen Uguccioni, preservation officer. I just wanted to add a couple of things, and thank you very much for that briefing. This legislation was really -- as I remember it, Nancy Leeman (phonetic) was greatly involved in this on the Beach, particularly, where assessments continue to rise and rise. The commercial property owners were just getting really hit hard by the assessed value of the properties, which caused their taxes to rise. This statute is a local option statute. No one -- no city or county in the state of Florida has enacted such an ordinance, so Miami would be the first. It allows you to create an ordinance that applies to commercial properties and certain buildings that are used by not -for -profit organizations. What happens now is the assessor is basing the assessment on the highest and best value, rather than whatever little building might be occupying that parcel, so in many cases, they could indeed do a lot more on the site. So I'm delighted to hear that you're considering this, and it would be a first. Thank you. Chair Sanchez: But let me -- Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Chair Sanchez: -- just clear something. You said that also for non-profit 501s [sic]? Ms. Uguccioni: Yes, sir. Chair Sanchez: Or could it be just somebody who has a historical home? Ms. Uguccioni: Oh, I'm -- let me clarify that, sir. They all have to be historic buildings, but they could be occupied by -- Chair Sanchez: Okay, and by -- Ms. Uguccioni: -- a not -for -profit. Chair Sanchez: -- historical buildings, they have to be what? They have to fall within a certain Ms. Uguccioni: They have to be either locally designated and -- as individual structures or contributing to a historic district, or they could be individually listed national registered properties or contributing within a national registered district. Commissioner Regalado: Like the Freedom Tower. Ms. Uguccioni: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Like the Freedom Tower. Chair Sanchez: Okay. DISTRICT 5 City of Miami Page 166 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 VICE CHAIR MICHELLE SPENCE-JONES D5.1 08-00564 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF LEGISLATION SURROUNDING THE HANDLING OF DERELICT PROPERTY. 08-00564 Email.pdf DEFERRED Note for the Record: This item was deferred to the City Commission meeting currently scheduled for June 12, 2008. Chair Sanchez: All right. Any other items on -- Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Just -- Chair Sanchez: -- PZ (Planning & Zoning) that we need to get out of the way? No? Your items -- your blue page items have all been continued. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: Right. Chair Sanchez: We'll continue when we get to that item. All right. At this time, the City of Miami City Commission meeting stands in recess to convene an emergency Midtown CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) meeting. At this time, I will pass the gavel to the chair of the CRA, Chair Spence -Jones. [Later...] Chair Sanchez: Let's try to get some of these district items out of the way. It's been a long day. We'll go ahead -- Commissioner Regalado: I -- Chair Sanchez: Vice Chair Spence -Jones asked that all her item [sic] be continued. D5.2 08-00565 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NEED TO REVISE THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SURROUNDING THE LENGTH OF GRASS BEFORE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS ARE CITED. 08-00565 Email.pdf DEFERRED Note for the Record: This item was deferred to the City Commission meeting currently scheduled for June 12, 2008. [For minutes related to Item D5.2, please see Item D5.1.] D5.3 08-00566 DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NEED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS SURROUNDING THE IMPROPER USE OF HOUSE SHUTTERS. City of Miami Page 167 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 08-00566 Email.pdf DEFERRED Note for the Record: This item was deferred to the City Commission meeting currently scheduled for June 12, 2008. [For minutes related to Item D5.3, please see Item D5.1.] City of Miami Page 168 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 NON -AGENDA ITEMS NA.1 08-00629 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION PLEDGING IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF CUBA SEEKING POLITICAL FREEDOM AND BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. 08-00629-Legislation. pdf Motion by Chair Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-08-0288 Chair Sanchez: Before we do that, ifI could just take a -- pass the gavel and take an item out of order here. Yesterday was a historic day at the White House, as you all have read in the news. As the President passed a resolution basically asking that we support the solidarity in Cuba with the people that suffer. We are extremely proud that our President recognize the suffering of those living under utilitarian dictatorship in Cuba for nearly 50 years, half a century. Countless innocent Cubans have been detained, imprisoned, tortured, and executed for the simple act of executing their basic human rights in that country. The US (United States) Department of States continue to document horrible human rights abuse in that island -- it is properly documented -- caused by the Cuban government. This resolution that was passed in the White House is a resolution that this legislative body needs to stand in solidarity with the White House and democracy -loving people in the US seeking the freedom of those in Cuba. So this is something that we're pushing and asking all the local governments and basically to make sure that this message is spread around the world that we come together in this resolution, which I would like to move, which is a resolution of the Miami City Commission standing in solidarity with the people of Cuba seeking political freedom and basic human rights in that country. So move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: All in favor? The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Spence -Jones: This item passes. Chair Sanchez: Thank you so much. NA.2 08-00590 RESOLUTION District4- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REPEALING THE Commissioner CODESIGNATION OF SOUTHWEST 49TH AVENUE FROM SOUTHWEST Tomas Regalado 8TH STREET TO FLAGLER STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS "OFFICER WILLIAM H. WILLAMS WAY," PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 02-633, ADOPTED JUNE 13, 2002, AND REPLACING SAID CODESIGNATION TO NORTHWEST 40TH AVENUE FROM NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, TO NORTHWEST 9TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; URGING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO PLACE SIGNS AT SAID NEW LOCATION; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICES. City of Miami Page 169 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 08-00590-Legislation. pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado Absent: 2 - Commissioner Gonzalez and Spence -Jones R-08-0296 Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I have a pocket item, which is very simple, and it -- Chair Sanchez: All right. Pocket items. Before we adjourn, you're recognized for your pocket item. Commissioner Regalado: Okay. This pocket item, it's a resolution repealing the codesignation of Southwest 49th Avenue, from Southwest 8th to Flagler as Officer William H. Williams Way. That resolution was adopted June 13, but it never -- in 2002 -- took place and replacing the codesignation to Northwest 40th Avenue from Northwest 7 to 9 Street. The reason of this is because Officer William Williams die precisely in that corner of our district, and they -- their colleagues want to remember this motorcycle officer precisely at this address. Somehow it was designated in 2002, but it never happened, so this resolution is to change the codesignation and direct Public Works to proceed with the process. Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: That's the motion. Chair Sanchez: We would need a second on that. Commissioner Sarnoff Second. Chair Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Sarnoff. No discussion on the item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." That takes care of that pocket item. No other pocket items. If not, before we adjourn, as always, want to take the opportunity to thank the staff and thank everyone for getting us through this long day, and above all, thanking everyone for the patience. NA.3 08-00632 DISCUSSION ITEM BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING MINIMUM LIQUOR REQUIREMENTS IN THE HISTORIC MIMO (MIAMI MODERN) DISTRICT. DISCUSSED Commissioner Sarnoff Mr. Chair, I just want the folks atMiMo (Miami Modern) to know, along with their historical designation, equally went, simultaneous that day, the designation to create very much what you just did in your district, which is getting rid of the minimum requirements for liquor. Chair Sanchez: Which is to create an arts and cultural district, which allows you to benefit -- Commissioner Sarnoff (INAUDIBLE) know that that's in the works and that happened that day. City of Miami Page 170 Printed on 6/16/2008 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff. April 16, in case you're wondering. Chair Sanchez: Okay. So we need a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Sarnoff. So moved. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. That motion is always entertained. City of Miami Commission has been adjourned. Thank you. God bless you and good night. City of Miami Page 171 Printed on 6/16/2008