HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 4, 2004 ZB TranscriptMIAMI ZONING BORRD HE I2G
Monday, October
6:00 p.m,
2005
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami/ Florida -
Reported By:
Kathy Schwab, Court Reporter
Notary Public, State of Florida
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC
N..Miami Office . Job i
Phone - 800-224-1268
305-651-0706
ESQUIRE DEPOSIT ON SEPVICES
(305) 651-0706
Esquire DeposionServices (305) 3712713
4
1c J
17
18
9
Git
n
21
'2
23
24
2
rtt _L :rro`(€an: Ileaa Hernandez
Zor-nu Po and Members:
Mi ouel Gabela
hose :< 2, aguzza,
.a.us GCi GvCl'W
Juvenal Pina
AllenShulman
'Angel Urdu..o. a
George 4 11 am
Lucia Dougherty - Attorney for the Applicants
Bernard Zyscovich - Attorney for the Prof ect
Andrew Dickman - Attorney for Rod Alonso,
Cruz & Mornfngside Assoc.
Lourdes Slayzak - Asste Direc.or, Planning &
Zoning
George Wysong - Zoning Board Attorney
Mr, Fernandez - City Attorney
Lionel Toledo - Zoning Administrator
Esquire Deposition Serces (305) 37 - 2713
4
6
9
1=
12
13 Dire c or on July 21, 2004 for new
14
she fo I W.
roceeci
were 6afa:
R CMAN HERNANi _2: Item Number
THE CLERK: Item Number 5
prcxima eiy 5101 Biucayne Boulevard. This
is an apoe 1 by Andrew Dickman, Esquire on
behalf of the Morn ;,ngside Civic Association,
Inc. and Red Alonsn, Ron Stebbins, Scott
Crawford and Elvis Cruz of the Class II
J
16
Special Permit App_ _cation No. 03-0309,
approved wit
uu
diti ons by the Planning
construction.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
MR. DICKMAN: Good evening, Ma'am
Chair, members of .the Board. :Andrew Dickman
18 with -law offices at 9111 Park Drive in Miami
19 Shores, Florida.
20• For the record, i d•also like you to
21 note that I have a Masters degree_in urban
22 and regional planning and I have held an
23 • American Institute of Cer`ified Piennino
24 recognition for almost -- acing on 15• years,
as well as a practicing' atror_rey,
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
8
`se_. _
_or'o .nc i e
F. _
e.�sC�.' _aT., i,,.. . They 1�^..47e flume. Oi.is _dei1=C
re n an
d
veioomer
nt to the e p r t O s e d
Quite succinct y, Our position
is that this deve.opmtent violates the Miami
T r
Nei �.o??'.bi se:ttitije Plan,,
several glares -- and I w>, + ? u these into
record -- n several areas, the land
use --
MS. DOUG ERTY: Madam Chair, could I
fterrupt for a second?
12 2 would like to proffer a Motion To
13Dismiss on three cur of the four grounds
14 that have been alleged bar Mr. Dickman, and T
15 think that this is one of them. And I think
16 it would be appropriate for me to at least
17 make that motion prior to any testimony
18 graven on the comprehensive plan,
19 CHAIRWOMAN E-ERNANDEZ: I will defer
20 to our attorney.
21 MR. `FYSONG: Thank you.
22 _ think that's appropriate. There's an
25 appeal and she's moving o dis_,__ss the
24 appeal, so it would be in order to hear the
25 Motion To Dismiss first. And then -_ those
Esquire Deposition services (05) .371 7 7 v
motions are acid or ; et then
_c: man n o detail,
0i , RWOE' AN H6RNF' N3Z . Thank you.
Lucia
MS. DOTT:If R` v. Lucia Dougherty with
0 offices at 122. s ickelI Avenue. I'm here
u,. bha 1 of the owner and ao -- icar t.. With
8 me here today s Jerry Cohen and Larry
Eisenberg, who i r..e applicants.
10 There are four grounds `hat- have been
11
12 appeal, he has -- the first ground is that
13 it violates the Comprehensive Plan; Second
r
15 ground is that it violates the standards of
alleged. And if you pu l out Mr. Dickrian's
around is that it violates 907.3,2. Third
16 •1305. And the fount ground is that they
17 violate due process in that they didn't
18 - apply S -9.
9 On the first gFouna, it violates the
•20 Comp.. Plan., this is not something even the
21 Planning Department can consider when
22 issuing a Class 1 plan. In other words,
23 the Como. plan and ore ?on.ng ordinance must
24 be consistent,
25 But we have not asked for a change in
Esquire Depos;.ion Services (3O5) f 1-271
9
the Corm., ___art. A..._, this woulo m,.e i some
...ngau" somebody `' L to azoack .."ie Comp,
Plan when you _, , sue a bu; a.og per:
._ cannot be done. s
,:1ar''.`:i
et n is g
Deoertnieo_t can look a
Wren they are issui
v c _
t?"1ev have standards, and those are 1305.
And therefore, not something tna. this
Board can consider, as well.
10 CHAIRWOMAN >`ERNANDEZ : Hold on a
11 ate
12 Lourdes, would you comment on that? Go
13 item by item,
14 MS. SLAYZAK: Lucia's correct, This
15 application did not seek an amendment to the
16 Comp. Plan. It is a special perm t.
1/ The criteria that we use for special
18 permit review is•not the criteria for the
19 - Comp. Plan amendment and they weren't
20 seeking a zoning change or Comp,. Plan
21
•amendment. It's different criteria.
22 CHAIRWOMAN HERNA DEZ : Okay. Lucia,
proceed, please.
24 • MS. D OUGHERTY . The second standard
i S,
at we O`. 2,
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
And
4
8
the 4
..t L ' :- ✓'� lso say t; a i.
DI__E d the correct Zoxiing
c±stric -- or ; h ' ccrre-.ct standards
re the same mown
conneotioi' with those two. These aren't
at you can consider because t
aren't things that the Planning Department
can consider whenthey make their
recommendation. in fact, those issues were
11 determined by t Zoning Administrator in
12 November of 2003, when, you'll see -- right
13 after Mr. Dickman appeal, you'll see the
14 Class II permit zoning referral, and it's
I� signed by- the Zoning -administrator 11-20-03
_6 that decision, where- it says. that the Zoning
17. Division of the Zoning and Planning
18 Department found this to be ire compiance
• 19 with aL applicable zoning requirements and
20 requires a. Class IT.
21 So that- the Zoning Administrator
22 determined 907 was applicable. Tt •
2 determined what law
garding SD-9 was
24 applicabie and no one appealed that
decision. Notwithstanding the
�.t
a` ali
Esquire Deposition Services t3O5)) 371-2713
8
•cr
o)ven n o t..
`aUr lass i
So, the
.-=?i?L.
ce c f ur ea --
oer F
ap ±1c
idences
fore, based on two
e _v because they
d.1 T t v appeal that d cis on
y -acle
those S
�dthose And secondly, its not
something that's part of the standards for
9
10
11 Class w permit application standards, of
12 which 1 will -pass out a copy when we get to
13 our hearing.
14 Based on that, I'd like the Board to
15 consider dismissing the first ground, -the
16 second- ground, not the third one, because
17 that's the standards_ That's the 1305, ;ut
1a the fourth ground, a well.
19 CHAIRWOMAN HE RNAND Z : Thank • you;
20 u- es.
21 Would -you please comment on that?
22 MS. SLAYZAK: We have zoning here
23 tat can comment on the zoninc; issues. But
24 what _ do want to, 1 guess, tell the Board
25 is that when you're re v i.ewrng a 'Class 11
the Class __ permit. You can't make
those -- those standards aren't in your
Esquire Deposition SQrvices (O5) 371-2713
4
ai c
ew n :. z
a p'e1_ba c way. You're here on appeal, and
what you can do is approve tne appeal, deny
the apneas, o approve with modification.
That's wit u_. the jurisdiction of this Board
7
But you must use e e same standards
that were used in the criginal Class II
Special Permit. You cant broaden the
10 standards of the criter:i-a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ : in other
• words, Lourdes, 907.3.2 what it was when
this carve through and not what it became or
is becom
a or
become.
• MS. SLAYZAK: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thane you.
DICKMAN: Madam Chair,? would
like an •opporrunity --
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ : Let me finish
with Lourdes.
• Is Zoning coming up?
MS SLAYZAK: We nave •Zoning here,
if you have any questions with the
appiicabilit ;
This application was filed prior to the
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 3 71-? 713
ien ment of 571 r, so it was not renewed
2 under the new S0-9. The new S -9 was
ao�ted r erg' recently, This apuli
because _t was filed prior to that amendment
_
,. ` C i ie passed � by v. n �:: i.. �t �`A Commission, was
allowed to. continue to be reviewed under the
he tjme it was filed.
And we have Zon rrc2 mere that can
comment en 907,
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDE•Z: Please.
MALE VOICE: Excuse me. Could you
give me some infer a ,ion on number three?
13 MS. SLIAYZAK: � ih ch one Fras number
x
14 three? Oh, the 1305, that one?
15 MALE VOICE: 1305, yes.
16 MS, SLAYZAK: 1305 is the criteria-
17 and it is the standards that should be used
18 for Cass. II . And that's when .the appellant.
19 will go. into his reasons .w Zy he believes it
20 doesn't meet 1305. But that one --
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANtDEZ: Lucia is
22 proposing to dismiss the first. one, second
23 one and fourth one, not the third so we
24 dcnt-,ave.to consider -the third one,
MS SLAYZAK: The third one is the
Esquire Deposition Services (305.) 371-2713
proper c __teri
RWOMAi HERNANDEZ:
O
MR. T ,L6 DC .s-v::e1 tiled a
(phonetic), Zoning Adm _.istr, : o
When the at_on came through,
was checked for all standards and everything
was fine.
8 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: veryth_ng,
aa Was recommended for .approval under tine
ln
standards "that were current at -the time?
.• MR. TOLEDO o Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Not the ones
13 that were or will become or in the process
1.4 of_
15 MR. DICKNAT: Madam Chair,
16 procedurally, I'd. like to point out, in a
? court of l a w ----
• CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Wait a.
19 mint.,„ We're not in a court of law here.
20 Lets not even go into a court of .iaw.
21 _MR. DICKNAN Candidly, this is a
22 quasi-judicial matter.
23 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. W ysonc,
24 - would you like tocomment_ on why we re not a
25 court of law, please.
Esquire DeposhioN Services (305) 371-2713
WYSONG: Weil, actually, you do
2 have to afford Mr. Dickman the fu4dament
clue
process.
An, although we're not in a
court of law, loose rules of ev:Ldence apply,
8
io
11
12 side that they are going to ague a Motion
13
14
15
points. My colleague knows this.
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
etc. However, a Motion To Dismiss has been
heard and now, there should• be a resense to
the Motion To Dismiss before the Board takes
• any action.
MR. DICKMAN: Normally, when an
attorney wants to proffer a Motion To
Dismiss, they will givenotice to the other
To Dismss so that the other side would have
an opportunity to prepare and argue those
For the record, I'd like to put that
out there, that no notice to dismiss was
presented to me whatsoever_ That's fine, if
she wants to make them. I have no problem
.with that. I just want to put on the
record., in a court of law, she would have
been required to give notice.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay. But
we re t n a court. of law.
Would you please. refer to them.
Esquire Deposition Services 305) 371-2713
MR, DICKMAN: Number one?
2 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: item two and
four, so we can make a decision on those and
4 then we'll get back to three.
MR, •DICKMAN: Yes, ma'am.
Undr riorida Law, Chapter 1 vour
,-banning staff knows this well and
8 hopefully, your attorney does, as well
a 1 development orders in the State of
10 Florida issued by municipalities are
11 required to comply with your Comp. Plan.
12 I'i. sure all cf you are familiar with
your goals, objectives and policies in your
14 Comp..Plan, and I'm sure all of you -all have
been briefed on the weight this Comp. Plan
1:67
17
carries with. it. That your decisions, staff
decisions, all of these decisions, whether
18 they be land development regulations —or land
19 use changes or requests far textual changes
cJ in the Comp. Plan development orders, ie.,
21 building permits; need to comply with your
22 Comp. Plan,
23 Your Comp. Plan does have provisions in
24 it for protecting adjacent and existing
25 residential neighborhoods.
It's throughout
Esquire Dpostion Services •(305) 371-2713
vonr futuY'6, land 1-1,,,e element and 'your
2 .housing element, to name two chapters that
are in your Comp. Plan. Your own codes say
4 that the appeal can de made of any decision
of the Adninistrator. It ,does not limit it
to things that are just narrowly defined by
opposing counsel or what they claim that
8 they had to meet,
9 You, in fact, are required to comply
in with your Comp. Plan, 'Under state law,
11 _ those development orders -- if you issue
12 development orders that are contrary to. your • •
13 goals, objectives and policies -- and I,
14 again -- of course, you're not. changing the
1 r,
15
Comp. Plan. Nobody's alleging a future land
use map amendment here. Nobody's alleging a
17 textual change. Of course, -that,wouid have
18. a different direct en. Tt wouldn't
19 necessarily come to you. It. mould do
20 through the Planning Advisory Board and
21 others.•
22 Again, your decisions have to comport
23 with your Comp. Plan, your institutional
24 directive of how this City will plan and
25 grow, issue development orders.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371--)713
L
8
9
v one?
u 4?'ani, ,., . ' €.e an each item, one
CHAT 9P OMAN 1 N'ANDEZ Have you
conclude d" w iu
L.he firs`
MP. DICKCMAN: On the first item.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Lourdes,
could you, please, comment •again or; the
i t item?
MS. SLAYZ2K: Yes.
U course, all development approvals in
the city comply with the Corp. Plan. What 1
12 said was, or, I guess, maybe 1 needed to be
13 more clear, when -an application does not
14 include an amendment to the Corp_ Plan, the
15 criteria, the • standards' that we measure that.
16 application by are very different than when
18
's a special permit. None of these, the
1305 criteria., the special permit criteria
19 reflect the - directly the Comp.
20 ,
21
The C tv of Miami's Comp. Plan was
found•to be.in compliance with our land-
22 development regulations, our zoning code.
23
The two mnst match. They have `::o be in
compliance. So. if a reatuest for development
appro a,l comes in and a development order.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-271'
9
u.es 17,he z .gin lnC
com. ! ....E an ce with our Comp.
Pi
The things. that Mr_ Dickman was saying
about rot.ectin neighbor ocds from
encroachment of land uses or incompatible
development, those are all the- goals,
objectives and policies of our Comp. Plan.
But if the developer is not seeking to
1C change and he's got his land use and zoning
12
13
14
15
16
- and 'the development complies wife the rules
of that land use and•zoning., then it i s not
deemed an incompatible encroachment because -
he is meeting the letter of the law for-
zoning, and our •zoning is in compliance wit
our COMP. Plan.
17 So; I don't believe that a Comp. Plan
18 is - throwiLng that out as a reason to deny
19 a Class II, when there's no Comp. Plan
2C amendment being sought. it's not part of
21
22
23
24
the criteria, not what `s before this Soar
You're hearing an appeal of a Class II
Special Permit that's got different
feria .
25 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Than vou,
Esquire Deposition Services 005) 371-271
17
3
L des.
Do any of the Board members have any
questions?
ry»n :, if they then is anybody
pre oared to make a '?lotion for or against
dismissal o f mart one of i tem z? - no, 5
I'm sorry.
MALE VOICE : I move to deny the
9 appeal.
10 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: No. Okay.
11. Let me explain a minute. We're not working
12 on the whole appeal, itself. On part one,
Item Number 5. And •it' s not an appeal,
14 Miss Dougherty's•proposing to --
15 MALE VOICE: Out of the four
T6 sections, the one that's proper is 130.5,
17 correct? So •I move --
18 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
19 MALE VOICE: 1 move. to remove the
20 first two and the• fourth.
2I MALE VOICE 2: We haven't heard a
22 response en those other -two elements.
23 • CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Pardon- me?
24 MALE VOICE 2: From the appellant on
25 those other two arguments, so we're only
Esquire Deposition Services 1.305) 71-2713
cons]. i g ,`37 R 71 f _1c,_ 2 relates F.'- whether or not there e _.s Jc,-,is
ipc:e�an �
,s F.+ .., � �G��d on �.:�1�_.'+��e-1is4e ncy s
4 CHAIR :Q-AN ER ANDEZ:
u
24
was
to exp%a i .7uc.W
an' a what
vas t one
Item Number
u .
MS. SLAYZAK: You should be
ccnsiderirzg a m ct2er. either er to dismiss the
first count or not to dismiss.
MALE VO?CE: T move dismiss the
first count.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: EZ: Is there a
second, please.
ANOTHER MALE VOICE: I second.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: There's. a
motion and a second.
Call the role, piease.
THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
MR. GARBELA. Yes,
THE CLERK: Mr. Ganguzza.
M. GANGUZZA: 1 just want to
comment, in. response to Mr.' Dickman's
concern about being caught by surprise. You
know, I'm a lawyer, too, and I'd like to
have rcrice of a motion like t h3, s e But in
Esquire Deposiiion Seri,' ices (3O5) 371-2713
th _- (a.e, Miss Doug er,
now, the bases _rat hvc et f, rt5 for the
ailp e: anc _ don't think tha,- you're
4 terr ;b" ' put upon, to defend that issue
1 would hope that you were prepared for
6 that, sc w do not see• an inconsistency ir_
the Cora;. Plan issue, so I'm going wo vote
yes in support of the motion _- the vote on
9 the motion.
_1
12
14
5
S 5LAYZAK: You voted yes,
Continue, Tease,
THE CLERK; Mr. Pina.
MR. PINA:
THE CLERK: Mr. Shulman
MR. SHULMA` : Yes.
16 I understand the argument, Lourdes,
17 you're saying, is that .automataca11y, the
18 zoning. has been deemed in "cbrpliance with.
19
20
ti Corp. Plan. And therefore, if the
project is iri compliance with zoning-, then
-21 automatically, at least for legal
22
23
purposes
MS. 5LAYZAK: For the _purposes o5
this appeal, i w. 1s not one of the .cn teria.
MR, 5HULMAN-, 1 wl vdte yes.
Esquire Deposition Services 4.305) 37l 2713
6
c:AS"1.'.I !.♦'WoM 1ii! ; }7RNANDEZ:
MR. ,. F Q U _ v I: Yes.
THE CLERK:
MR.. 4!i L,IAM
Mr. ,i _! is
Guess, T for the
ity mcr , because I vote yes
THE LER : Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN _HERNANDE2: es.
THE CRK: Action passes-, eigha to
9 zero.
10
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
11 Mr.. Dickman, would you, please, address
12 point two.
13
MR. DICKMAN: Let me also state that
14 in Article 18, which is, generally, the
15
criteria that. describes-what..can and cannot
16 be appealed to this Board -- and I'm going
11 to read verbatim,
18
it says, „Appeals t, the Board may be
19 taken by any person aggrieved or by any
20 officers, Board or agency of the City
21 affected by and this. is paren. 2., "any
22--decisionof the Director of the Department
23 • of Planning, •Bui.lding, Zoning, including,
24 but not limited to, decisions involving
2 Class -II Special Permits .
Esquire Deposi-Con Services (305) 37 1-2712
7i
Nowhere -in-.a nere yru to
t' st what C lass TT ter: its are reouired.
And et ree , that, yes,
while zoning_- you... zoning co' e, you . land
development regulations may have been deemed
c'orr ,atible with your Comp. Plan, it still
does not automati-,=, bless your
8 development orders. Therefore, if your
9
10
11 to your Comp. Plan. •You don't --
12 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Did you go
13 back to -one?
14 MR-. DICKMAN: No I'm on two, I'm
15 •
16
17
18
19
development order is found to
e contrary
your zoning, it could very well be contrary
on two. I'm talking about your zoning code.
Your zoning code, your land development•
regulations.
And you are required, under the code;
to follow your .;.and development regulations
20 We have alleged that this project
21
22 criteria that pertains to this Board.
23
24 • exactly to the code, Article 1•8, that says
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDE,Z : When
MR. DICKMAN: I'm pointing to
v decisio„, including.,' It doesn'
Esquire Deposition Services (305) '371-2713
exclude any other decisions,
So, we are bringing her,
that ,tart with he Comp. Plan ant get down
to the zonino- code,
5 MR WYSONG: Madam Chair, could I
6 add ,hat Section 1618,06 of Article 18 says,
7 '"Iiearing Powers of Zoning Board. In
8 'exercising authority to review the decision
9 of the administrative official, the Zoning
10 Board snail have all the'powers of the
11 officer from whom the appeal is taken .and in
12 conformity with the provisions and.in
13 • - this -- in the law of zoning, may reverse or
14 affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision appealed. from and may make such
decision as • ought to be made.'
That dovetails with Miss Siayzak's
comments, that you're sitting in judgment of
the decision of the Director of Planning,
not any decision, although it says "any
decision," youare limited to the facts of
this particular case and the applicable
laws. And here is somethina, for example,
• -;2-1 the first °Cunt of the app
the Corp
elan was never part of the Zoning Director's
Esquire Deposition Services (305)371-2713
decision;
front of ? s Board.
l ere are otbee. rem. o o Mr. D c1
mar ursue _egardang the Comp, Plan aLL pursuant
the statute, but the Zoning Board was not
6 the appropriate remedy.
11
12
13
14
5
17
18
19
2 C 'CHAIRWOMAN HERNAN EZ : ;;could you.
21 continue with number two.
22 MR. DICKMAN: The criteria includes
MS. S, dAY K: if there .had been,
le ' s say, an interpretation of the 'Comp,
Plan, a written interpretation by the
Planning Director and that were to be
appealed, it would come to this body as an
appeal of the interpretation of the Comp,
Plan, hats here before you is ? appeal
Class
II. It was filed as an appeal
a Class I1, not an appeal of a Coma. Plain
interpretation of how something should .or
shouldn't•apply to a piece of property.
You have to use the same criteria that
the lirector used in reviewing the Class 1I
reviewing whether it's compatible with the -
2A Comp. Plan. I believe even Section 1305
says that.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
you oc ree?
real ;I not co let this
1 rn
into a r at thing. If that's. the case,
then let's have you, you know, address the
attorney and he can rebut it and you can go
back and •fob h , because I don't think
t l at
--
MR. DICKMAN: I don't want to be
10 here all n qht either.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Excuse me.
12 I don't think our attorney, City''s
13 attorney or the Department is agreeing with
14 what you're stipulating.
15 MR. DICKM .N: Thats okay.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: I'm not an
attorney and not head of the department.
Neither is anybody here on the Board. •I'm
sorry. City attorney.
20 MR. DICKMAN: 1 can offer a
..2: solution.
Persona.' if we could have just put
on our case _n chJ ef, the developer. could
1 8
?22
123
24 have made their motions, we could have heard
25 all of these at one time. Instead,- she has
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2711
forced you iu o near' g each one (7)f, these,
on at c time, and she could t%e very
ea.s:LL
e these arguments in :per rebuttal
our anneals p
CHAIRWOMAN d zR1.�;Ah'DEZ: Let's a Lck
vary. two of '907,3.2, please,
MR. DICK AN. 4r,e .nl ece .haw it's in
8
9 You're requfre; to•fcllow the zoning code.
11
12 made by the Zoning -Administrator in this
1 letter that's in your package in November of
14 2003. And that was not appealed. And just
15 like Mr. Dickman .said, you can appeal any •
16 -decision by the Zoning Administrator, the
violation of that, of your zoning
MS. DOUGFERTY . Not only one of
criteria, it
untimely.
cooe.
That decision was
17 Planning Department. He did not .make that
18 appeal; therefore, it's untimely
19
2L
21
22 •
23
24 -
25
to
not
only is it not part of the criteria, also
untwrne'y.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNAND,.:• -Okay.
Lourdes, would you, please, put anyone who
is not familiar with 907.3.2 up to date on
MS. SLAYZAK: This is -- I'rt €ust
Esquire Deposit on Services {305) 3 71-u 713
6
18
12
t
T
__y
cu
idea.
v` n u.
ecia . Permit is filed with the
Cityof M _em , the very first step in the
Class is Special Permit - s for the spp iicant
otake theTir development plans to the
Zoning Division and Zoning •does s review o
male sure that it otherwise complies I? t
zoning and ail of th .other aspects,
setbacks, height, parking requirements,
green space, etc.
And once Zoning -has determined that it
meets all of the zoning recxu remen_ts and all
that's left to do is the Class II, where we
14 do the design review, then Zoning will sign
15 off and refer it 'for the Class II Special
1 Permit.
17 In •this case, the Zoning signature,
18 which interpreted compliance with the zoning
12 requirements was done, as Miss Dougherty
20 said, in 2003. That decision.of Zoning was
21 not appealed. So, the Class II moved
22 • forward, acid that is not- one of the criteria
23 for the Class II Special Permit.
24 CHAIRWOMAN 1 ERNANDEZ . ; 'hank you.
25 Okay. Board members, do you have any
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
•
i.iP esiI_i ate_-'ns o.i�f _ic i- od.:J9
two,
.'411L.tea VOICE: Mot- on to ✓isiss p4
have a Question.
s the Class 11 in this particular case
wh: ,t does in _;cumber? h. ai is it aliowi zo'
them t..o do?
MS, SLAYZAK: The Class II S'TDec-al
Permit is for new construction of a
0 multi -family with some mixed use development
1. on Biscayne Boulevard. It is in the• SD-9
12 Special Zoning District.. That's why the
13 Class II Special Permit is reguireo, in
14 order to review it against the special
15 requirements of SD-9 and -the design
16 considerations built into SD-9.
17 MALE VOICE 2: All that was done?
18
M. SLAYZAK: It complies with SD-9
1.9 at the time .that i t was Eased_ SD-9 has
20 since been modified,• but at the time that i
-21 .was filed, it complies with SD-9.
22 MALE VOICE 3 : Is .this on the east
23 side or west side of Biscayne Boulevard?
24 MS. SLAYZAK: It's on the east side
25 of Biscayne Boulevard.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
2
VOTCF rb_is is
Tt0
considerGtjon oh water, e ninety feet o2
bo use.or
bonuses
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Actually,
not on ..eye water and there ` s no
MALE VOICE 3: No bonuses,
8 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: It's only a
Class II. It's not a maYior use,
10 MALE VOICE 3: There's no variances?
11 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: No variances
12 MALE VOICE 3: Okay. Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
14 • Mre Garavag1ia.
15 MR. GARAVAGLIA: At the time when
16
you had
t application for Class II permit
17 • and when you make yodr consideration, is it
18 still co pa tible for two, their
1 consideration, since you done J me 11, 2003?
2 MS, SLAY AK_ I believe one of. the
21 two applications, five and :s x, are similar
22 in -that they are a biock apart on Biscayne
23 • Boulevard . One of the two does meet --
24 does meet the new height requirements of.
2 Sr-9, The ocher one does not. But r:'s
cl�tire De si ion Services (305) 37 1-_7 3
2
P rc..-e`tia.. because at the
t.houci
comp i y 'iith SEi
MR, GAR AV G T A: What is te
C G a
.....ass, .-that
Class ! 1 Special _ ermit?
NO . S 3.AY ZAK: As long as it stays on
appeal, the new requirements will not kick
8 in. Once t e appeal is settled, they have
9
S they do not, then they have to comply with
the new SD
12 MR. GARAVAGLIA: Thank you.
13
74
lc}
16
-17 not applicable to this -- what we're •
18 deciding here. Sa _ would move to dismiss
19
six months to get a building permit, If
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Garbela,
MR, GARDELT: Yes-, I would move to
dismiss -point two and, preferably, point
four,•because Lourdes lust said that. it's
point two and point four and concentrate on
2S point three.
.21 MALE VOICE: Second.
22 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Motion and
23
second.
24 • Call the role, please
MR. WYSONG: adam Chair, before ycu
Esquire .epos tion Services (3O5) 371-r E 3
dismiss Count fcur, since th,,z, motion
includes Count four, I would ask, you
know as we said, th llose rules of
4 evidence apply here; however, fundamentais
of due process should be affordedto
6 Mr, ri-ir-kman and he should be, at least,
7 entitled to a response as to why count four
8 shouldor should riot be dismissed.
0
MR. GARBELA: I'm sorry, Mr. Wysong.
10 I forgot that point. Sc, motion to dismiss
11 point two.
12 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
13 There's a motion and second.
14 Coil the role, please.
15 THE CLERK: Mr. Garbele.
16
1.7
MR_ GARBELA: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. Orduiola,
18 MR. URQUIOLA: Yeah.
19 • THE LERK: Mr. Ganguzza.
20 MR. GANGLIZZA:. Yes.
21 THE CLERK: Mr, Pina.
22 MP.. PINA: Yes.
23 THE CLERK: Mr.. Shulman.
24 MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. William,
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
MR. Ye......._L..1M: a.es
THE CLERK: Ms. Bern andez .
CHAIRWOMAN i- RNAN DE Z : Yes,
THE CLERK: Mot on passes
5 unanimous , to dismiss part two of the
appeal.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
w Mr , L .4 kman .
9 Should 1 move on to part four?
10 MR. D1CKMAN: Part four involves the
alleged violation of the Special District
12 overlay 9, which is the intent to allow
development but protect the a jacent
14
15 -
16. procedurally, 1 believe that thi just
17 not the way a Motion To Dismiss should be
18 handled, just for the record.
19 CHAIRWOMAN HERNAND ,Z. •Thank you.
20 Lourdes, cou_.d you please address point
21 four. 1 think it's the same thing, SD-9.
72 MS. SLAYZAK: Correct.
25 The SD-9 was in the process of being
24 reviewed and modified when this application
25 was being processed. It was ultimately.
neighborhood. And we believe that not only
is this in. violation, but for the record,
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-_7.13
4
t 1 r oL%ec
does Impose some new
limits ts en development. on ..... .!..scayne Bo
and some se tack mcdificat_ons, but
levard
criols_ was Iready 5 process and was
5 allowed to continue.
Again, once the appeals are all done,
ey hare six months to get their building
12
14
20
2
22
23
24
25
oer.m L
project.
they Whave to redesign the
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
Board members, any questions or
motions?
MALE VOICE: Motion to disiss.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ : Okay:
There's a motion to dismiss part four. Is
there a second?
MR. URQUICLA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: There's a
motion an second -by Mr. krqui ola .
Call the role,- please.
THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
MR. GAREELA: Yes.
HE CLERK: Mr, Urqui_oia .
- MR. URQUIOLA:
THE CLERK: Mr. Cangn z za .
Esquire Deposition Se; -vices (.305)371-271:3
33
'rz`. MJIN .uZZA. Yes.
2 THE CLERM : Mr, Garavao l ,
MR. CARRAVAGLIA:
THE CLERK: Mr. Pina.
MR. PTNA: Yes.
c THE ,LERK: Mr. Shulman.
MR. SHULMAN : Yes.
8 THE CLERK: Mr . William.
9 MR. WILLIAM: Yew
E CLERK:.. Miss Hernandez.
11 CHAIRWOMAN HERNAND Z : Yes
12 THE CLERIC: Motion passes
13 unanimously 0o• dismiss part four of the
14 appeal on Number 5,
15 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay. Part
16
.three
17 MR. DIC MAN: Section 1305.2 is a
e - design criteria recently amended by the City
19 to put- more standards in place for not only
20 the adm±,istration, but as well as the
21 Board, to make decisions on special. permits,
2
includino Class __ Special Permits. That
23 criteria is lengthy and _t is detailed. It
24 requires you to
look at a lot of things,
udinp the compatibility with the Com
Esquire Deposition Services ,_05; 37M27.1
We believe that this Drolect
frankly, Quite s:Lmply, toc big, out of
scale, incompatibi wifhthe adiacent homes
that are directly adiacent to that. Singie
family homes that, perhaps. at their
tali st, are twenty feet. This property,
8 going 3rom Biscayne back, is a very shallow
9 property. It may be a hundred ten feet
10 deep, at its most.. They're going to be
i 11 putting a large development on a very thin
12 piece of property and it will negatively
13 impact the adjacent neighborhood of
74 Morningside,•
1305 deals with this. squarely and •
16 directly. It addresses compatibility and
17 ca1e, bulk and height and buffering. And I
18 believe this project does not meet that
19 requirement and, therefore, we are appealing.
it.
21 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
22 Lourdes, would you care to address
23 number three,
24 MS. SLAYZAK: Well --
25 CHAIRWOMAN bERNANDEZ: Well, if
Esquire Deposition Services (305)371-2713
b
8
you ? ...e .Jt ready, can adt T.- r s
gain.
S. l.nZ^K: Yeah. 1 think the
ica 3v goes nexi.. and then the
CHAIRWOMAN AN H RcNANDEZ o Okay,
MS. DCUG ERTY
Chair, members
or the Board, this is a very modest project.
It is on the east side of U.S.
It ,s •
9 currently where two .motels are located
i We have not asked for a major use
i special permit, we nave asked for no
12 variances, we have asked for no .bonuses, it
s Q d i..L.4 L- 'fa't
currently has two motels
on- it, but the motels are no longer legal.
15 So, if the motels go away, the only thing
,6
?eft that can be put on this property is
17 either residential or office, not even
18 retail:
19 And I say modest, because it used to
20
have an unlimited height. Tt no longer
21 does. But even in that context; the
22 Planning Department, my client, the
23 architects, all strove to make this the most
24 ccmpati.ble buildings,
actually doing
25 both ouildi nc s at the sane time because
Esquire Deposition Service (305) 371.271
8
9
not c= ] i cations d t the same Wme .
want to show you i
cap' ne Boulevard We origena _l\ started',
e a-hty five thousand square feet,
reduced uo sixty thousand feet. We
origin a1 1 v had eleven floors, we reduced it
down to eight floors. Gr n ! l had 89
units, down to 63 units. larking, is what's
required. The height. We used to have 117
feet, now down to 87 feet. a5.0, on 5101, we:
11 actually have les
12 in today's code.
fight than is permitted
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ :
14 with me one minu
bear
.Would you please read item number --
16 since Lucia is referring to
t,
Itern NUT er
17 6.
18 MALE VOICE: Number 5.
19 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: No. Item
20 Number 6.
21 THE CLERK: Approximately 5225
22 Biscayne Boulevard. It is an appeal by
23 Andrew Dickman, :squire . on behalf of the
24 Morr_ingside Civic Association, Inc. and Rod
Alooso, Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford and
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 37 2713
4
E1vs r'rUz of the Class II Special Permit
Application No, 03-0308, aproved with
conditLons by the Planning Direotor on
2004 for new contruction.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
That way, it's alreadv read into the
7 reco-/Td. As vou refer to it, Lucia,
8 everybody knows what we're talking about,
MR. DICKMAN: Madam Chair, if I
10could make a quick suggestion, and if
11 Counsel agrees.
12 If Counsel's going to make the same
13 argument she made in the last item, we'll
14 agree that everything incorporated from that
15• hearing will go to this one. We'll say the
16 same things, reargue- the same things.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: If we do
18 that, how do we go about doing that? Do we
19 do it when the time comes? Can we do it
20 now, so we have it fresh in our mind?
21 MR. WYSONG: When the time comes, we
22 should also. say the comments from this
23 matter will be revised and extended to the
2next •matt r and then you can say to the next
25 matter, and then von can vote. They have to
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-271 -3
8
10
11
12
be vo d on ar -ci-
But, ... so, 1 imagi n e, nne you
dismissed Counts ne, two and four of h �s
eeai, you ha e
separarefr
appeal.
address .those Counts
you want dog on to next.
C IR f1O AN HERNA NDEZ : That's what.
Counsel is suggesting, which we all agree
with wholeheartedly.
MR, DI4 KM. N: Put that in the full
motion for that item?
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes, the
same.
MS, DOUGHBRTY_ The same discussion
for both items. 5225, we had, originally,
eighty thousand square feet. We reduced it
17 •down to sixty-one. Eleven floors, we
18 reduced to eight and a half floors. Ninety
19 unit down to sixty-seven units. The height
20 was, again, 117 feet. It is now 97 feet,
21 which is -- 97 feet, four inches, which is
22 two feet, four inches higher than the code
23 allows you today.
24 So, it was the City staff, was the
25 Urban Development _Review -Board, t was our
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 7b2713
9
!0
11
12
_3
15
16
17
18
)
20
22
23
a c n ......
ec
add.x e'''
1 i
d the issue
wri th11 c� _ c tea.? s
was compatible as;d so a ea, and they did
in the con,ex- ext of "t:211.s ppl_C .."E On.
loom at
And I'm q , nc to pass out
.I f you
m going
nave 'Gl.ora pas out the standards that
apply.
CHAIRWOMAN I-IERNAN DEZ: Mr. Dickman,
were you aware of these changes?
Or are you saving t.at was made
initially, Lucia?
MS. DOUGHERw Y : I ' m sure he's aware
of i 1. .
MR,. DICKMAN: Yeah, e.'re aware of
2_
MS. DOUGHERTY: So, Gloria
Velazquez, my partner, is passing out the •
standards of 1305. And you'll see in the
standards,
t says you have te; review
• this is the planning staff and now -you w-
"review for appropriateness _hall. be given
to potentially adverse effects generally and
on adjacent and.• nearby properties of the
2 area, the neighborhood, the• city or the use
Es a re Deposirion Services (305) 37 i-2713
or occupancy )rol)osed,
Q now, .Tlere;s Vona' 1 want you to
Scotts en, potent... v adverse -
4 effects are foe nd, consideration shall be
given to special remedial measures in
appropriate -- in particular circumstances
et the case, 1 c udir_o screening, buffering,
landscaping, control
manner of hours of
a.• operation, alterations of the design and-
10 construct on
the buildings, relocation of -
11 proposed open space or other such measures.
1 2.
as are required, to assure that
7
7 w potential adverse effects are. eliminated or
14
15
16
18
10
20
minimized • to the maximum extent reasonably
feasible "
Like I started out saying, we started
to s application in November.of ' C, It 1
now - has been seven or eight months. We
have gotten major use special permits in
..Less. time..' consistently., with the UDRB,
21 with the planning staff, with the architect
22 - and with our client, is reducing this
23 building to the extent that we bel it is
24 compatible, it is in scale; it is the r.:...sht
25 and very modest • ry 3 act for this
Esquire Deposition Services. '305) 371-271
perty.
2
G
- � 3
ich who
i ; ' to core forward c nd
descr_.b ...:?e project for vou.
MR. TADOT: Thank von.
What Lucia just described to your in
terms of numbers,- these are the effects of
the build as .
is what- we i nitia1. v
created for the aroposal, .reiateo to the
bu_l.ding,•1 nn. nk, at _1 , feet,- This one
was what was. aparoved by the Urban Design
11 Review Board. You can see.. we kept pushing
12- it down. And in the urban redesign, there
13 is another iteration where we bro7..1ght. it
14 - down even more in order -to work with the
i5 best that.we could with staff and the-
16-• Planning Department, to get the- buildina to
its current situation
18 So,• you can see there's been a very
19 very significant drop
terms of the
•20 building design, the building he.ght, he
21 number of units, Approximately, twenty-five
22 - percent of the base FAR -- forget the bonus,
23 . ferret all the• extras that, most of the
time, we go through with o u r client. Just
25 the base FAR, as originally nally- required as a
Esquire Deosie on Serwets ( 9_'j "71_'27
26
8
9
11
12
R
14
16
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
maxmum jn the code, has been reduced by
twenty-five percent, So the buildThg is,
actarily, seventy-five percent the size that
it would
seline,
When the code .has finally arrived at
its final conclusion, in terms of the
height, we have one building at 87 feet, the
other building is at 97 fet. The building
code has a maximum .height of 95 feet,
So, in terms of the compatibility, even
after all of the iterations that:have been
gong on through what is now almost -a year,
this building, in very many respects, not
all, is, essentially; the type of building
height'and configuration that.would_be
allowable today, after ail -of the code
has been accomplished.
And as I said,.a voluntary reduction in
the size and overall•scale.of the building.
We've also gone to .the trouble of trying to
understand what's happeningon Biscayne .
Boulevard.and what are the issues.of
ccmpatibilitv We.have some projects up
hers ln th rnorthern edge. Here's .Biscayne
Boulevard,
work
Esquire Deposition Services (305)37F-2713
43
2
to fail,
CH277WOMAN HERNANDZ: That's about
I thoucTht I was gettirg dizzy.
MR. TALBOT: Here'.s our • wo bTocKs.
4 :And we have po cr numbr on at 61)th
Street and 58th Street. These are bctb
6 buildings that are already, more or less, at
the same height as this one. As you drive
8 down Biscayne Boulevard, •you'il probably see
9 them being renovated. 1 think one of them
10 is having.the skin replaced.
11 And 'chen we went into Morningside and
12 we actually took pictures, put the building
in that ha been designed, into a photo
14 montage, to help understand what the impact
15 is on each of the streets that are there.
16 , These are done in good faith, with the best
17 of our abilities; to show you what the
.18 impact is within the neighborhood,
19 • And then, finally, these drawings show
20 you the impact of what the buildings
21 appearance would be on Biscayne -Boulevard.
22 And again; we think that they're very
23 compatible with the existing issues.
24 One of the things that has not been
25 mentioned, because ell of the focus has
Esquire Deposition Services (305'1371 -2711,
44
` e based _ upon
2 • ,, nt: e sir,
Boulevard, d, an
property
family u._.e, Biscayne
ne planning
ng
ers
City, is consi,gerAd the
boulevard of the Cloy, the il. ght-of-way is a
minimum of 100 feet w=de,
In every urban design component that
I'm aware of related
major
streetscap e _ and r Fm sure many of you to ve •
traveled and have seen the avenues and
boulevards of major c ties, and 95 foot
height for hundred foot right-of-way is not
an imposing scale, We believe that the
proect is very much in scale.
I think that there has .been a lot of
movement in the City to remove• unlimited..
17 height, to constant .y be pushing this .down.
We 'understand that the lots, themselves, are
quite narrow. But by the same token, there
is an element of the boulevard that needs to
.21 have some impact and some presence, and it's
22 •our belief that- this project is very much in
sca e.
24 So, to summarize, the street has been
25 activated o We ' ve taken the common areas of
23
Esquire Deposition Services (305 )371-2713
45
'
tail is not cillowed,
2 And 3veve taken and applied all of the qood
elements of urban design. Yousee
ac-tiytles at the street. You don't see
parking at the street level. We brought the
6 size and bulk of the buildings down.
7
And in many respects, it is not only
8 compatible, -but .even almost in compliance
9 with ail of the requirements that would be
10 applicable in the c.").-9.
11
'With that, I conclude our comments. We
12 have some additional boards, if you want me
13. to go into it. I don't think this is
14
1 6
1 7
desion session, but we have that
information, if you're interested. And
thank you very.much.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
18 R. PINA: I have a question.
19 have a questi
for him.
20 You mentioned, your last sentence, that
21 some of this is compatible with SD-9.
22 R. TALBOT: T. didn't say
22 compatible. I said:compliant.
24 MR, PINT: Compliant.
MR. TAT,BOT:
ompliant There's
Esquire Deposition Sery es (305) 37 -2713
n v
4
the. c r ent
4
cor igur u ion,
this
does not
comply with. We exceed the setbacks. rye'
about air same ihe' a . There are
certain issues regarding a new 45 degree
angle setback that we don't
y
And what else. don't we comply with?
8 CHAIRWOMAN 4 OMAN HERNANDEZ: Let me
9 ?nterrut you for a minute and ask our
' att. orney, in considering this, are we
?. supposed to be using SD-9 and 90 7 . 3 e 2 as i
12 was when this was approved, or as it is now?
23 I just want to have it reiterated, please.
14 MR. WYSONG: You have to look at it,
15. what was approved at the time.
16 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: What was in
- 17 place when it was approved, not what it is
is now.
19 MR. WYSONG: Correct.
20 MR. OINA: And _ understand that.
21 • But for my own information.
MR. TALBOT: We're disclosing that
23 informati
on. What I'm truing to say is,
24 even though, under the on i.na3 application,
25 we could have created a much bigger.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 17i=�71
47
2
we've been Coir°c e'veryth-
we know now to do b'ing
the scale do wn and even today, when you
talked about the impact, most people are
to i~ Ong about the height of the builda ng
6 We're w i `. h i n. a c o u p l e
one case, below-9 5 feet
of 95 feet. Id
t' s our belief th "? s is a very
compatible building and is the type of
1 0 building that represents a lot of efforts on
11 everybody's part to try and make it as
12 acceptable as possible to the people who
believe that it shouldn't be here at all.
MR. ETNA: Three things. The
TZ
8
20
21
22
24
2
angle
MR. TALBOT: The angle -- it's the
angle, the setback -- no. The setbacks, we
exceed what there now. Minor use is
above, because it's impossible, with such a
narrow lcr.. And T think the podium height
We're a little higher on the podium.
MR. SH'ULMAN: _ have two questions,
sir .
li
is your egress and
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-271
2
8
9
10
s reets ,
MR. SHULMAN:
valet et PCr
`, TALBOT:
It' . on the side
to have
n( so.
M DOUGHERTY: And both side
streets, in both caes, are closed,
• Other words, the don't go 3.nto the
neighborhood. They're closed streets.
forgot to tell you that.
MR. SHULMAN: And your parking --
1n
12 How many units, first of all?
13 MR. TALBOT: We have 63 on 5101 and
14 we have 67 on 5225.
15 MR. SHULMAN: So, which one's the
•16 last model you have, between those three?
17 Which is the one you planning to --
18 MR: TALBOT:• The smallest,
1Q
20
21
22
23
24
MR. SHULMAN: The small -one.
+R. TALBOT: In both cases.
MR. SHULMAN: And parking, you going
to have parking?
MR. TALBOT: Structured perking.
You come. in on the side street, you co up
the ramp and then you have two floors of
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 3 / 1 -271
49
-
11
an
u have• floors o f u n i
M , A S AU f.i :N . many parking space
you be able --
MR. TALBOT; have 83 where
there' s 67, and 89 where there's 63.
i naua
no to have
in the first floor and the
entertainment stuff.
MR. TALBOT: No, no. We're having
common area, the Jyrn, the .obby, you know,
whatever we're allowed to have that's part
of the apartment building, because part of
BBscayne Boulevard isn't zoned for
MS. DCUGHERTY: You're not allowed
15 •to have any retail in this part The only
16 • thing you can of is residence and office;
7 That's it.. So we don't intend to Have
18 offices. This is going tc be common areas
19 for the condominium.
2Q MR. TALBOT: For the residents are
21 allowed -- we moved it down to the first
22 floor.
23 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ Okay.
Lourdes, do you have any rormen-,.s on part
three? Contin ..:ine saga.
Esquire Deposition Services ' 05) u i f -2 f 1
50
i
3
;
t-,2"-..ti. a know.
and Zoning
3enar _:: en t believes that the application
_n complain s with 1305 . As .he a-o ican
stated earl on, this is Class 11 Special
6 Permit tnat took, aperoxiiii. ely, eig
monhs, which is seven months longer than
8 most of them Wake. It went back and forth-
with the internal Design Review Committee
10 and UDRB, trying. to find ..he kind of
11 conditions that could mitigate any potential
12 adverse affects.
_. What was difficult with this one was
14 SD-9 was in progress and -we were not allowed
to apply the new SD--.9. - Through our design
16 review comments, we gave a lot of• very
17
13
19 tremendously in order to bring it down.
20
21
22
23
similar comments, and the applicant
responded by modifying the project
So I believe that the Pla nir±g Director
minimized all of the potential adverse
effects to the maximum extent possible,
.utilizing the conditions and safeguards that
24 were allotted to us through 1305 and the
25 zoning ordinance.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 3 71-2713
4
h
8
9
CHATRWOMAN HERNAND7Z: Thank you,
Is there anybody else who would like tc
speak for or aoainst this item?
Mr. Dickman, is there any, like, small
comments you'd like to make?
MR DTCKMAN:
,
In ciosin, 1'- like to just put into
the record Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which
are things that Counsel's very well aware
of, the goals, objectives and policies of
11 the Comp. Plan, as well as the variety of
12 letters- we submitted on the appeal. Like to
13 put those into the record just for that.
14 And once again, we'll close just by
15 •saying we believe that all of the citations
16 that we referenced in our appeal, including
17 and involvind 1305.2, 1 believe, require
18 you, under that code, as well as SD9, to
take intofull consideration the existing •
20 residential neighborhoods, which are the.
life blood of the upper east side.
If you don't have single family
23 residential, medium income houses, where
24 people can live and -raise their families. and
25 you continue to allow large scale
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
speculative devel .pment to abut -up aaainst
,
.z. i , vou are hackind away at the resource
3 that 0.rves ths community. Thank you,
4 CHAIRWOMANHERNANDEZ: Thank vou.
5 MS, DOUGHERTY: Just ror the record,
I have to obiect to tne aoais and Dolicies
beind submitted into evidence I know he's
8 just proffering it for tne record.
9 CHATRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you,
10 We will row close the meetino• to the
11 public and open it up to the Board for
12 motions, discussion.
13 I might just add that I think that it's
14 a wonderful idea if -that
any area in the
15 city could be kept for just residential and
16 medium income, but I can't see anybody being
17 able to afford, with a medium income,- to
18 build one house on -any of these lots
19 anymore-. Unfortunately or fortunately.
20 Okay. Board members,
21 MR. PINA: Madam Chair.
22 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes. •
23 Mr, Pine.24 -
MR, PINA: Although -we said the
25 character of our neighborhoods_is what makes..
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
code ..
4ha? nas
Change
arid _ al
ee
that
Co e changed, there was. some
the code tha needed to be
but that's what we're work: na with.
The applicant has made a prose? apDlicat o
within the quicielines off' the 4lme s You
can't change the bailgame and say, it's not
three outs, s, it's now two outs in the middle
of the ballgame.
So I think they've done everything.
And in addition to that, the . comme? ts by
staff where they went ahead and said, look,
13 throughout the middle of this,
made some
14 . . adjustments with the capacity that we had at
15 the time, to modify this, to comply as much
16 as what's going to be in place, which is. the
17 SD-G, So --
18 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ : You going to
19 make a motion.
20
MR. RiNA: Unless my colleagues want
21 to.
22 I uphold the Director's decision.
23 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Well, .make
the motion, please,
'" MS. S Aa'zA : The notion would b
Esquire Deposition Services. (05) 37 i -27 t 3
r
8
9
!7
l THE CLERK:
deny the d C ohoa L"! i s on ;7A:
the ec r of ? 1 a ring and Zoning,
dH _RwG-`1.€ !- H3R, ? DEL: Okay.
There's a motionsIs there a second?
MR_ GARA .7AGLIA: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN dERNAND EZ: There's a
motion and a second by Mr. G aravaglia
THE CLERK: This result, i s this
on part three?
CHAIRWOMAN HERNAND Z: Yeti. Well,
it's only part three, but it finishes off
the item. Okay. Go ahead.
It was seconded.
14 MR. GARBELR: Are we voting or•
16
17 number three, but that's the only. one left.
18 MR. GARBELA: About tc deny or grant
19 the apoeai?
0 MS. SLA YZAK: You dismissed three of
21 the four . grounds. for appeal and you're
22 voting on the appeal of the one remaining
ground.
24
denying the whole thng right now?
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes, This is
THE CLERK: Mr. Dina.
MR. PI N A: Yes;
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
THE C , _,
a rbe l C .
11
2
> : R .
M r . Flowers. e L. t d i e
d reflect __ oh, he left again
t kaV . Mr , Ganauzza .
MR. GANGUZZA: Yes.
L n s r r
aravalE
8 MR. wARA'AGLIA: Yes.
9 TEL CLERK: Mr. Shulman.
MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
I'd like to also say T. agree with the
• general concept that there are compatibility
13 issues g o bally in the City. 1 think there
14 are problems. I think the zoning is
changing, and 1 think that ° s. beginning to
bring these prcjetts more into context. But
this project clearly .went through a process,
benefited from that process, scaled down.
19 A11 that as part of the process. And so --
20 And _ really do feel that, as . -a- user of
21 • Biscayne Boulevard, this is also a good
22 project for Biscayne Boulevard.
2 i So, yes..
24 THE CLERK; Mr. Urcuiola,
MR. URQUiCLA: Yes.
15
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371--)Ti
4
THE CLERK: Mr, William,
MR.. WILLIAM:
TH7, 0LE3K Miss Char. H7RNANDEZ: Yes.
THE CLERK: Motion passes
unanimousl.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Pina,.
would you like to make the motion on the
fciiowing item, as we had discussed?
10 MR. PINA: To deny the appeal and
11 uphold the Director's decision.
12 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Which has
already been voted ari the record.
14 MS, SLAYZAE:. Let me just ask the
15 Assistant City Attorney, do they have to
16 vote on dismissing •oner two and four again?
17 .MR. WYSONG: I think the applicant
18
19
20
21
should make that motion and incorporate the
arguments from Item 5 -into Item 6.
Otherwise, it would be the entire appeal
• that you'd be voting on.
22 MS. DOUGHERTY: I do that.
23 request that you dismiss grounds one, two
24 and four and incorporate all of our
C. 3
discussion fron the last -- from Item Number
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
5 into Item Number J
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ:
three and four,
MS. DOUGH. RTY : No.
ask—n.0 for you --- m only asking for the
.c? sm±sva. of one, two and fou- and then
wouid ask you to approve e appeal
u ultimately.
r^ATRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
MR. DICKMAN: Can 1 just -- for the
11 record, we` 11 incorporate all of our
2 arguments on those three dismissals and
13 also, arguments on the final --
14 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: : Decision.
15 MR. DICKMAN: -- dental
16 How did I dd with that
1 I CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: That sounds
good.
19. Okay. There's a motion. A second?
20 MR, GARBELA: Second.
2' CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Motion, a_nd-
2? • second -by Mr. Carbela.
23 THE CLERK: Okay. This motion --
2e MS SLAYZAK: Is to dismiss
25 grounds
Esquire Deposition Sen5ces (305) 3371-2713
CLERK: Two an f au
a
0
11
12
13
14
C,
aQ pe
seconded
MS. ST.AYz AK:
Sri: ce .
1- E CLERK: was } 'wed by
CHAIRWOMAN ?WOMAN HERNiAND'EZ: Pina,
Mr
arbe_a.
THE CLERK: Thank
'1r. b ina .
MR. PINA: Yes,
TH7 CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
MR. GARBELA: Yes
THE CLERK: Mr. Gancru z za .
MR. GANGUZZA: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. Garavaglia.
MR. GARAVAGLIA: Yes.
16 THE: CLERK: Mr. Shulman.
17 MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
18 THE CLERK: [ur. Urcl-uicla.
19 MR. ORQU_CLA: Yes.
2U THE CLERK: fir. William.
21 MR. WILLIAM; Yes.
22 SHE CLERK: Miss Hernandez.
23 CHAIRWOMAN ERNANDEZ: Yes.
24
THE CLERK: Motion passes
unanimously.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 3 71-T71
An d den- 1 ti e
n ;
O_ 223O g E2 <2§YE : Clay. Thanks
2 very mach. TKaz2 you
9
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
(Whereupon, the heal -in g a= _o ,=em Nos,
5 and 6 was sons
Esquire DepositionServices 903371g23
rF'.RTIFICATF-
2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing.
pages 1 to and including 59, is a true and
5 correct transcription of my stenographic
notes, to the best of my ability and
hearing, of a videotape transcription of tte
0 Miami Zoning Board Hearirig, at the City-
9 Hall, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida, on
10 the 4th day of October, 2005, commencing at
21 6:00 olciock P.M. Not ail speakers were
12 able to be identified via the- videotape.
TN WITNESS roll-F'7REOF I have hereunto
14 affixed my hand this lst day of November,
15 2005.
16.
7 -7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Kathleen Schwab
Notary Public - State of Florida
Commission No.: DD456716
Commission Expires: 08/01/2009
Esquire Deposition Services (305)371-2713