Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 10, 2004 TranscriptsJune 10, 2004 May 6, 2004 April 22, 2004 Transcripts Submitted By: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire, on behalf of Kubik, LLC; Biscayne Premier Investments, Inc and Mark's Classics Corp Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:00 AM Verbatim Minutes City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www. ci. miami. fi. us City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manse! A. Diaz, Mayor Arthur E. Teele, Jr., Chairman Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner District One Johnny L Winton, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Joe Arriola, City Manager Maria J..Chiaro, interim City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk REGULAR 03-0415 PZ.1 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 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 RETAIL! RESTAURANT SPACE, AND APPROXIMATELY 362 TOTAL PARKING SPACES.; DIRECTING TRANSMI1 I AL; 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 Fact Sheet.pdf, 03-0415 MUSP Analysis.PDF, 03-0415 Zonino Map.pdf, 03-0415 Aerial Map.pdf, 03-0415 PAB Resos.PDF, 03-0415 MUSP Application.POF, 03-0415 Sp 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 Legislation.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit A.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit B - Alt A.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit B -Alt B.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit C - Alt A.PDF, 03-0415 Exhibit C - Alt B.PDF, 03-0415 - submittal.pdf, COMM-4-22-4.ppt, 03-0415 - submittais.pdf, 03-0415 - submittal - Women's Club.pdf, 03-0415 - submittal - Morninaside.pdf, 03-0415 - submittal - Kubik.pdf. 03-0415 - submittal - U of M.pdf REQUEST: Major Use Special Permit for the Kubik at Morningside Project LOCATION: Approximately 5600-5780 Biscayne Boulevard APPLICANT(S): Kubik, LLC; Biscayne Premier Investments, Inc and Mark's Classics Corp APPLICANT(S) AGENT: Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING 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 a mixed -use multifamily residential development. Motion by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Chairman Teele, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote, Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Winton, Sanchez, Regalado and Teele R-04-0383 Note for the Record: Commissioner Winton created a local citizens subcommittee to study the relocation of the Women's Club building and come back with a recommendation in 30 days. Chairman Teele instructed the City Clerk to obtain the names and contact information of individuals interested in serving as members of said committee. Chairman Teele: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here for a very important item. Mr. Attorney, would you review the record and tell us exactly where we are? A verbatim transcript has -- minutes, I should say, I think have been passed out, but I don't see what I'm looking for. Mr. Clerk -- Mr. Attorney. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): PZ.1 is the Kubik item. Mr. Chairman, at the last hearing, May 6th, this item was continued with specific directions, or instructions that the public hearing was closed, and that when it came back to this hearing, the only testimony you would take would be that of the attorneys for both sides and staff. At that time, you all directed the parties to see if they could reach a rational consensus recommendation for the City Commission and come back at that time, through counsel, and make such presentation to the Commission. Chairman Teele: Would you comment on whether or not there's going to be testimony? Mr. Maxwell: Only testimony indicated at that time that would be allowed today would be that of the two attorneys and staff, if necessary. Chairman Teele: All right. Are both counsel present -- or all counsel that are here on the matter present? Would you state your name and information on the record? Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the Kubik property -- or project, and with me is Enrique Alvarada and his son, Camilo, who is also the architect, and they are the principals of the project, Andrew Dickman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Andrew Dickman, law offices at 91 1 1 Park Drive, representing the Morningside Civic Association. A number of those board of -directors and members of the neighborhood are here with we today, Chairman Teele: And have we reached -- Madam Attorney, Counsel, have we reached -- Ms. Dougherty: Probably, the best thing to do is to give each of us five to ten minutes to make a presentation, as to where we are today. I have the honor today of representing this development group, and -- Chairman Teele: Are you going to wait for a decision, or you're going to -- Ms, Dougherty: Yeah, sure, Chairman Teele: Counsel, do you have any objection to that? Mr. Dickman: Could be -- Chairman Teele: To allowing each counsel ten minutes to make -- up to ten minutes to make any statement that you'd like -- Mr, Dickman: I'd prefer -- Chairman Teele: -- as to where you are. Mr, Dickman: I'd prefer up to 15, ifI could, Chairman Teele: All right. It's granted. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, Chairman Teele: Up to 15 minutes. Now, will there be a rebuttal or -- did -- let me say it this way. If you would like to break your time in half or separate your time, you have leave to do so, provided you don't exceed 15 minutes and, counsel, I assume that's OK with you? Mr. Dickman: Yes. Chairman Teele: All right. Both sides will have 15 minutes, and Ms. Dougherty will have the right to divide her 15 minutes any way she'd like, after you have spoken, OK? Mr. Dickman: So I will go first? Chairman Teele: No. You'll -- Mr. Dickman: You will go first. I'll follow her. Chairman Teele: You know what? Why don't we do it that way? Why don't we do it that way? Why don't you go first and, Ms. Dougherty, why don't you respond, and that way we're not breaking time up. Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Mr. Dickman: That's acceptable. Chairman Teele: Is that acceptable to you? Mr. Dickman: Absolutely, absolutely. OK, Ready to go? Chairman Teele: Thank you for -- Mr. Dickman: OK. Gentlemen, thank you for having us back here today. Recollect your memory, we were here on May 6th. The instructions were for us to come back after meeting with the developer -- Mr. Maxwell: I'm sorry, Counsel. Name and address for the record, please, Mr. Dickman: 1 thought I had already done that. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Dickman: Andrew Dickman, law offices at 9111 Park Drive in Miami Shores, Florida, representing Morningside Civic Association. Mr. Maxwell: OK. If I have asked you to repeat, I apologize. Mr. Dickman: That's right. Better safe than sorry. We convened -- actually, let me back up. This is -- let me state for the record that this is the l3th time that the neighbors have attended a meeting such as this to deal with this particular applicant. They are here tonight, and also joined by newly formed neighborhood coalition. I would ask those neighbors to quickly and quietly stand up so that they can be recognized, please. Thank you very much. We did attempt, in good faith, to find a compromised position with the applicant. We met on May 24th, and on May 26th, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig. The meetings lasted approximately two hours each. In attendance at those meetings were members selected by Morningside to represent those positions that they had decided were agreeable after a long process that they had, in terms of putting together a list of items that they felt were important to them. Also in attendance were members of the staff -- or one member from staff to answer questions, Lourdes Slazyk, who 1 want to say thank you very much far attending those meetings, and we had a very vigorous dialogue with the applicant. We came up with a list of ten items that were important to Morningside. These were items that were in the public interest, and we made it abundantly and absolutely clear that our issue was the central issue that Commissioner Winton stated right before we broke last time, which was the height, bulk and scale. That was clear to all parties that that was our main and absolute issue that we wanted to deal with. However, we did put together a list of other issues that we felt should have been addressed during the staff review that we put out there. The issues that we put out on the table, number one, was the height and scale and bulk of the building. Basically, that it's too big in relationship to the other surrounding buildings. You'll recall that at the last meeting, two models were brought out before you. One was ours, which you can see on the far left over there, put together by the Morningside, and the other one was the Kubik model, which is covered up here. They had a smaller model. At that time, it was determined that the -- that our model was eight percent bigger than what it should have been, simply because we didn't see that height was measured below the surface, and their -- the problem with their model was that they didn't provide surrounding buildings so that you could judge what the scale was so, again, going into these meetings, that was the main topic. We talked about that. We talked about the need for removing the bonuses for the planned unit development. It was our position that this is not a planned unit development because it is simply a multi -family building. It is not adding anything to the surrounding area and, therefore, should not be able to -- the benefit of the 20 percent bonus that it was given under the PLID (planned unit development). The amenities that they put in place are strictly for the benefit of the residents that will be moving into this building, so we had said that we wanted the bonuses removed. In fact, that was the position of staff, as well. We raised the issue of noise and light pollution and, specifically, we talked about events and parties that may take place on the top of the building, and lights that may be placed an the outside balconies and so forth that would disperse into the community because, again, this is going to be a very tall building that will be seen from the neighborhood, We also raised the issue, which was a high issue for us, of the Northeast Miami Women's Club, the preservation of that building. I will also add that we have today a letter from the grandniece, I believe it is, of the architect, Victor Nellenbogen, who we have a letter here from her, and I would ask to quickly read a few passages of that, and NI put it into the record. This is from Kathleen Tyler Conklin. "I urge you not to allow the destruction of the Northeast Miami Women's Club. I am the grandniece of Victor Hugo Nellenbogen, who designed the beautiful and architecturally significant building. It has been said that the architecture is music set in stone. 1 urge you to save the Northeast Miami Women's Club." If you could please put that into the record for me, I'd appreciate it. This was an issue that was important to our community; was the preservation of this historic architecture. Another issue that we brought up was the placement of the air conditioning and mechanical units that are seen nowhere on the plans, and where would they be located in terms of noise and visual pollution. VTe also brought up the issue of parking. Specifically, our concern was that — whether they would allow for enough parking to serve the retail and office space on their project so that there wouldn't be spillover into the street, or into the neighborhoods. This was a very important issue, and I think it came up in the Midtown issue about allowing for -- excuse me -- some free parking, or at least validated parking, so the parking wouldn't end up in Morningside, or in the other neighborhoods. We also brought up the issue of the billboard on the front end of the park -- front end of the property, and whether or not that could be removed. We strongly discussed the issue of scale on Biscayne and 58th Street In fact, the design of the building, as you can see over there, broadsides Biscayne Boulevard and 5th Avenue, and we felt that it would create a tunnel effect and a canyon effect on the Boulevard. The last two issues had to do with pedestrian safety, that building something this large would obviously be an attractor for many of the residents across the Boulevard, in Morningside and other areas. Right now, it is extremely hazardous to cross over the boulevard at 58th Street, and also at S4th Street, Those lights currently do not have crosswalks, and running along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard, there isn't a viable sidewalk for pedestrians to walk to and from, so we talked about that issue of pedestrian safety in and around the development and, finally, the issue of the existing residents, and also the industries there, with regard to Lou's Car Wash and Andiamo was an issue for us. Specifically, it is our position that this is going to be the elimination of some affordable housing, replacing it with high -end luxury housing, and how are they going to deal with the current residents; would they deal with them fairly and help transition them into a different location? That was important to the community, as well. I can tell you unequivocally that they were willing to talk about eight of these issues. The issue that we made central to our position was the height, bulk and scale, They were unwilling to compromise at all an this. We even talked about how would this building fit under the new ordinance, and whether they can meet that. The upshot of it was that in order to meet some of the issues that we wanted, specifically, the issue of .Biscayne Boulevard, they even went so far as to state that they wanted to increase the height, so they went the other direction, They were not willing to come down on height, at all, Their reasoning was that this building would be -- the project would be economically infeasible, and that is really not an issue that we think this Commission should be considering, the economic viability of this, but we did ask the applicant if, in fact, that is an issue for you, then share with us your financial disclosure -- financials so that we can look at it, and it won't be an issue. They -- to date, we even asked for that several times and they did not provide any of those financial documents to us so that we can see that. it has been stated that they purchased the property somewhere on the order of about 10,000,000 or $1 1,000,000. We have looked in the public record and it shows approximately S5,500,000, so the issue of whether this is a viable project is still not a strong argument for us, but what I want this Commission to understand is that we went into these meetings with good faith. We had a lot of dialogue only on our side, before going into those meetings. There was a heck of a lot of variability. A lot of people are very strong about wanting to hold the line on what came out of the charette with the -- no more than three-story buildings, but there are also some voices of reason that say we need to try to find some common ground, and I believe that that voice of reason and that common ground came to these meetings twice, and we received no movement on their side to come down on the height, or the scale, or the bulk and this, candidly, is the issue. Because of this -- not moving on this main issue -- we actually have retained an expert, a professor from the University of Miami School of Architecture, a Professor (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to do two things: One, to examine our reworking of our scale, and to validate that our scale model is, in fact, to scale, and I would put that into the record, and the professor is here today should any of the members of the Commission wish to hear his positions, but I would like to read this into the record, and it basically says, "I've been asked by Elvis Cruz, of Morningside Civic Association, to verify the dimensions of the model constructed to portray the size of the proposed development. I have taken a City base map and plotted the height dimension and proposed project on it in order to compare with Mr. Cruz`s model. I can safely verify its accuracy in displaying and verifying large scale relative to its surroundings. If the project is definitely not" -- "the project is definitely not example of good architectural scale relationships." After these negotiation meetings, our architect -- our expert, having looked at the models and the plans, has advised us that a proper scale for this site would be on the order of five to six stories. That's what we think needs to go on this property. We were willing to discuss other options with the applicant. They were actually wanting to go the other way. They wanted to go higher, in exchange for some small token -- what we think are in the public interest -- amenities. These were not amenities that were just for Morningside. These were amenities that needed to be done and should have been caught through the public process, so that's where we are today. We have .not reached an agreement, unfortunately. We have our expert here, if you would like to speak with him. The primary issue that I want to leave you with is to review the record. We placed in the record over and over, at the last hearing, the criteria that this Commission needs to use when evaluating these projects. It is not how long the applicant has been in the process getting approved. It is not how much they paid for their property. It is not how much you like or dislike the developer and their designers, and it is not Y- certainly, it is not how many numbers of meetings they can attest to having had with the community. The fact of the matter is, Article XVII and Section 13 of your Code specifically tells you what you need to look at with regard to the impact of this building on the surrounding community. Chapter 17 also tells you that an analysis needs to be made of whether this is consistent with your adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, goals, objectives and policies. This is your master plan for the City. By law, this is your master plan. Thank you. 1 just want to quickly read into the record those goals, objectives and policies that we feel would be contradicted should you approve this: Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.13, Policy LU-1.1.10, Policy LU-1.4.10 --1 would read these if I had more time, but I'm just going to put them into the record Policy HO-1.15, Policy HO-1.1 b, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, HO-1.27 -- these are all your goals, objectives and polices that this project will contravene. 1 want to read one goal HO-2, "achieve a livable city center with a variety of urban types for persons of all income levels." Chairman Teele: All right. Counsel, your times up. How much more time will you need? Mr. Dickman: Give me two more minutes, if you would. Chairman Teele: All right. Take three more minutes. Counsel, you'll be entitled to 18 minutes. Mr. Dickman: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Objective HO-2.1, achieve a livable downtown with a variety of housing types; Policy HO-211, Policy HO-214, Objective TR-14, Policy TR-1. 41, which deals with urban streets, and 1 want to read this. "The urban streets whose primary function is to serve the adjoining residential neighborhoods." The first part -- the first urban street listed is Biscayne Boulevard. Primary function is to serve the adjoining residential neighborhoods. Policy TR-1.510, Policy CM-415, each proposed land use development regulation change within the coastal high hazard area of the City will require an analysis of its potential impact on the evacuation times and shelter needs in the event of a hurricane. This is going to cause at least six or 700 more people on a boulevard within the coastal high hazard area that no one has even at least considered the hurricane evacuation issue. Finally, Goal CM- 5, preserve and protect the heritage of the City of Miami through the identification, evaluation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of Miami's historical, architectural and archaeological resources. Finally, objective CM-5.2. We believe that the comp. plan tells you that large developments, multi -family developments belong in and around the downtown, Brickell, Edgewater, Omni, not in these residential areas. It also tells you to preserve your historical resources whenever and wherever you can. It also tells you the need to not have commuter traffic throughout the area, and everyone can acknowledge that Biscayne Boulevard is a traffic congested boulevard, that you place large multi -family buildings close to the Metrorail and other significant employment generating places. There is no significant employment generating industry in and around this. 1 urge you to support what your staff has said. Reduce the height of the building and remove the bonuses. I ask you to uphold your Comprehensive Plan and deny this development. Thank you. Chairman Teele: Thank you very much, counsel. You're entitled to 18 minutes. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. Again, for the record, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I have the honor today of representing this development, which began over a year ago. My partner, Gloria Velazquez, reminded me last night that she was not pregnant at the time, and since the time that this project has been ongoing in the City, she has had a baby and it is six months old. This project is, as of right, there is no zoning requests, there are no variances requested, there are no special exceptions requested. We are asking for 20 percent ofthe bonuses that would otherwise be allowable for this site. We are asking for a Major Use Special Permit that is 24 percent less floor area ratio than is permitted by Code; it is 39 percent less than the height that would be permitted by Code; it is a -- has a hundred parking spaces, more than are required; it has 23 percent less density than is permitted, and it has 21 percent more open space than is required. The project has a complete liner uses, which -- why don't you uncover this while we're talking complete liner uses of the garage; it preserves the Andiamo Pizza; it has a huge urban plaza, which, again, is 21 percent more open space than it is required, but before we got here today, let me tell you what we've done. We've redesigned this project five times; we've reduced the number of floors by two levels; we eliminated vehicular access onto 58th Street. What I want to show you by that is on 58th Street, we now have town house units -- and if you would like, we're offering and proffered it again -- town house units on 4th Court, as well, so the entire base of this project is outlined or Lined with town house units and, again, we had to buy another piece of property to do this. This all happened with the input of a lot of neighbors. We've met again over 60 times with neighbors; we've had 25 meetings with staff, and we're proud to have the support of the following neighborhood associations: The Palm Grove Homeowners Association; Alex Rodriguez is here today. The Bayside Homeowners Association; Shane Graver is supporting it, and I know has sent letters to that effect. Leaders of the Upper Eastside Council, David Treece, Bob Flanders, Pablo Marcus and Bill Traurig are all here today and supporting the project. Patrick Whiteside from the Chamber of Commerce is supporting the project, and ail five neighbors on the other side of 58th Street support this project. All of the single-family homes facing the project on 58th Street support the project. I know there was some issue about that. We regrouped; got three more signatures of the same people again. At the last time, you asked us to meet and you said, "Meet in good faith with these folks," and we did, and one of the suggestions that Lourdes Slazyk made, which made a lot of sense to us and we tested it, she said, "Put the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) here and make it come open like this, like a "U" shape," so we tested that. What that does is take 40 percent of the FAR away from the site. We, again, did another project. We were willing to consider that. We thought it was actually a great idea, but again, it doesn't work financially, but here's what we agreed to do: They said, "Would you screen your mechanical equipment?" We agreed to screen it, and we said we'd put it on the other side of Biscayne Boulevard. They said, what about -- Commissioner Winton: What do you mean, the other side of Biscayne Boulevard? Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me. We put the mechanical equipment on this side of the building, not on the Biscayne Boulevard side. They said, "What about retail parking? With the retail parking, are you going to somehow validate or have free retail parking so the folks don't park in the neighborhood?" We agreed to validate retail. They said, "How about the billboard? We don't like it." Neither do we. We'd like to get rid of it as soon as possible, but we agreed that we would not renew any leases, to the extent we had power over that. They said, pedestrian safety. We agreed to provide crosswalks on 54th Street on Biscayne Boulevard. We agreed to have 58th and 54th Street speed tables, kind of a raised bump, and allow for kind of an urban plaza. Existing residences. We agreed that for three months, anybody who's living in the building currently, we would give them notices and we would give S1,000 to any tenants who've been there for more than 10 years. Women's Club. We agreed to incorporate the significant architectural features meeting the rotunda and other architectural features into our project, as sort of like an entryway or a front door to our project. Light and noise. We've agreed to no exterior lighting projection, except by what's required by Code, and we agreed to put in our condo docks, there would be no noise emanating from the project after 11 o'clock. Massing, scale and the common effect and height. Well, this is the issue: And what we believe is that this is in scale. 1 would like Camila Alvarado to come forward. He is an architect, and he has a letter written by -- or not a letter, but the -- well, 1'll let you talk. Camilo Alvarado: For the record, Carnilo Alvarado, 1625 South Miami Avenue, Mr, Dickman: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Are we going to allow experts to testify or -- Ms. Dougherty: Well, you put your expert in the record; I didn't object, but more importantly, you asked us to come with a scale model, so how can we -- we have to explain the scale model, That's been the issue for the Commissioners. Is this in scale, and so we have to explain to you why it is in scale. Mr. Dickman: Well, 1 had to explain my scale. Chairman Teele: Hold, counsel, counsel. On page 14 of the transcript -- Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: -- the verbatim minutes -- Ms. Dougherty: I'll be happy -- you want me to testify instead? Chairman Teele: -- the Chair ruled that, based upon a motion by Commissioner Winton, it does not include a continuation of additional public hearing and "The lawyers and the City staff will make the sole presentations." Commissioner Winton replies, "Yes, that's my motion." Ms. Dougherty: All right, then I will do it, to the best 1 can. This is a -- comes out of a treatise by Elizabeth Plater Zyberk, who is the architects that you have just hired to do your master plan. It says, what is the relationship -- the best relationship per thoroughfares, and it's (INAUDIBLE) , and that's exactly -- Ms. Thompson: Excuse me, Lucia. Lucia, you need to hold the middle of the mike. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. What is the perfect spatial relationship of a street to a building? And they said, it's one to one. One -- in other words, the street should not be any wider than the height of the building. That is the case. That is actually the case in this case. If you turn this as -- on its side, you will see that the building is no higher than the street. There it is. There it is in plan. What we've done here -- Commissioner Winton: I don't get it. Ms. Dougherty: In other words, the street, the face-to-face of the two buildings should be proportionately the same size of the building on each side. That's the perfect. Now, the other ones are fine, and its not exactly the -- OK. You've asked for scale, proportionate scale. /v Commissioner Winton: No. I got -- I understood the question, Ms. Dougherty: Ail right. Commissioner Winton: But I don't understand this -- Ms. Dougherty: The concept. Commissioner Winton: What you said here, I'm a little slow, Ms. Dougherty: Right. Here's Elizabeth Plater Zyberk's book. It says, one to one, the relationship to the building to the street. Commissioner Winton: Show me right there what -- how that -- the one-to-one seem simple, but I stilt -- Ms. Dougherty: This is Kubik building. Here's the town house units or the studio units. Here's the height of the building; step back, here's the second height. If you turn this building on its edge, it's no taller than the width of the street. It's essentially the same. Chairman Teele: In other words, if you lay the building down -- Ms. Dougherty: That's right. Commissioner Winton: -- it should be no wider than the street that it fronts. Ms. Dougherty: From building to building, OK. That's the relationship of buildings to streets, That's the perfect scenario. On the other hand, there are other scenarios that are equally as good, but that's what he would have showed you. The other thing that he would have showed you is that what you have here is a massing scale of buildings as if under your new Code. I'm going to take these off to show you what exists there today, but this is what you can build under your new Code. This here. Again, this is C-1. This is R-3. This currently is office district. These buildings that are in black is what is permitted as of today. I've also passed out a copy -- you know, a year ago, if somebody would have said to me, you're going to have trouble getting a project approved that is architecturally significant, and its residential project starting units at three hundred -- 200,000 above -- Commissioner Winton: Hold it in the middle. Ms. Dougherty: OK -- in an island -- and I showed you the zoning map -- in an island, in the middle of U.S.', surrounded by commercial office and C-3, I would have told them they're crazy. How could this be? A year ago, I would have really said that, but then, I realized, and so did the clients, that we did have problems and we worked with our neighbors, and we got their support. Some of them we couldn't get their support, but we worked really hard and we got the support of many of the significant neighbors, including the neighborhood association in which this building is located, but last weekend -- because we had these models out two weekends in a row -- we had heard, no one saw it, so we made another special event where people could come to our building at Soyka and see the model for another three hours. You know how many people showed up? Three people, but it gave me a chance to realize what this building means, because I've been to Soyka's 10 times. I've eaten there, I'm sure as you all have. Has anybody ever walked up and down the street? It's a really special commercial enclave that he's created there that I didn't get before, I get it now, and what's the problem? You have shopkeepers on that island who -- on that street who said to us and the Planning Advisory Board, we have break-ins in our cars once a month, or the buildings once a month. Every month there's some sort of crime. What will this building do for this neighborhood? It will make sure there's eyes on the street and people in those shops, and it won't have a detrimental affect at Morningside. It can't see it from Morningside. You can see that. When you're driving in lvlorningside, you will not see this building, particularly, if anything else -- what's this? Well, you can come and see the scale. Kind of looks like a shot glass, you know. OK, so 1 can only close by quoting something from the newspaper, which I couldn't say it better, but Bob Flanders said it, "The building could have been 23 stories high. The developers didn't have to do 15 meetings with the residents. They didn't have to change the project about a half a dozen times, and they didn't have to add extra parking spaces. These people have bent over backwards to accommodate the neighborhood. if all developers were like this, what a magical world this would be." (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Winton: No. Excuse me. There's no clapping, no cheering, no booing, no nothing. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Thank you very much. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) asked me to pass around a picture that is taken directly in front of our sites, so you could see the urban context of this building, and you see behind it Palm Bay and what's this building? So you can see that this is a real urban street. Commissioner Winton: You only have one picture? Ms. Dougherty: That concludes my presentation. Chairman Teele: All right. Counsel, you have about five minutes left and you're concluded, so that always looks good. Thank you very much. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Would you mind removing the -- or put it off to the side? Thank you very much All right. The public hearing portion or the final arguments by counsel is therefore completed, and the public hearing again is closed, Commissioner Winton. Commissioner Winton: I thought -- he's not going to -- Chairman Teele: No. He's finished. He went 15 minutes, and then three more. Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK. Chairman Teele: The public hearing is closed. It's show time at the Apollo. Commissioner Winton: And I guess that I'm on front and center stage at the Apollo, then. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and was real curious to understand the presentation that would come today, and I had -- I guess I was interviewed by NBC 6 yesterday, and they wanted to see if they could pry out of me, which Joel would have yelled at me -- even if I had a decision by then, Joel would have really yelled at me if I would have given a decision, but I didn't have a decision because this is really -- this decision has bothered me, and it's been interesting. We've had a lot of development issues, and this place has been flooded, you know, 20 times, 30 times in the last three and a half years, and at every single turn, relative to development, when we sent the neighborhoods away to meet up with the developers, every single time, bar none, except the couple of times early on when I was elected, where I lost the 4 to 1 votes, the neighborhood and the developers reached consensus. This is the first time that that hasn't happened, but what's interesting is that, in this particular case, there are neighbors for and neighbors against, so as the elected official who's supposed to represent the constituents -- and I will also tell all of you out there that there's only been one time, since I've been elected, where 1 voted strictly along the lines of what the people out there wanted, only one time, and that was a development here in Coconut Grove -- Chairman Teele: I don't think you should identify that development, because that probably is going to give the Lawyer a heart attack. Commissioner Winton: All right, so I won't, but it was a development in the Grove. How's that? And the entire community coalesced in opposition to that development, even though, similar to this, that development had all of its entitlements in place, and was asking for no variances, no zoning, no anything, but there was some issues. We made them all go -- and so I voted -- and worse on that particular site, the developer could do, by right, things that were much worse than they were proposing if that came to be, if that came to pass, and I told everybody that, you know, this is a tricky one. You all need to go figure it out. They figured it out. So, at the end of the day, I didn't have to make some decision between half the neighbors this and half the neighbors that, and it's a shame that this one didn't work out the same way because about half the neighbors seem to be in favor and half of them are opposed. I still don't know exactly what I'm going to recommend here, so I'm going to talk for a minute. Because I've been -- over the course of the last two weeks, I've been in -- on both sides. I've convinced myself, I'm going to vote against it. I've convinced myself I'm going to vote for it. Here's the issues in my mind: I'm looking at the scale drawings, and I hope that everyone can see these scale drawings, and this is now -- at feast as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what Mr. Dickman says about what -- I didn't -- you know, he read all those numbers, so I don't know what was behind all the numbers, and I certainly don't have all those things memorized -- but subjectively, I'm looking at this building along Biscayne Boulevard and I'll tell you, that does not look out of scale to me. That building, with my eyes, looks pretty cool right there. That does not look bad, but here is the issue that really bothers me, and then I haven't figured out how to make sure that that message gets out very loudly and very clearly, and that is that -- the message that I want to send to the development community, along these development corridors, not in those zones where it's crystal clear that you can build bigger structures, but along the corridors, Coral Way, 27th Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard, Le Jeune, the corridors that we've all talked about that will be the focus of phase one of our master planning process, because we recognize that that's where our problem development areas are, that will be the first and fast track part of our citywide master plan to fix this issue, but between now and then, we have an existing Code that's probably -- the foundation of which is probably 50 years old, and the zoning is tied to that, something that someone created long before anybody had any dreams of this -- of the past development wave, the wave before that, and certainly this one, so we have some real issues that we've got to cure, and so what I don't want to have to do is every month have to sit here, where we're going through a battle with half the neighbors in favor and half the neighbors opposed along these corridors, and one of the things that creates this -- and here's the message that I haven't figured out how I get out -- I want to send a loud and clear message to the development community that we don't want you to do assemblages along these corridors that allow you to build bigger buildings. 1 don't care if half the neighborhood is in favor, because the other crystal clear part is that half the neighborhood is not in favor, and I think it does, fundamentally, create some issues, but I don't know what all the law of unintended consequences are, and that's the .reason we're going to go through this process . I don't know -- I don't want to do the wrong thing either, but I know for sure that 1 don't want to go through this kind of situation that we're going through right here relative to this project, and it is, in fact, assemblage which has allowed this to happen. Without the ability to assemble a bunch of individual smaller pieces, we probably _- this battle probably would have been resolved a long time ago in a very different way, but because the developers was able to do the assemblage, we have something that's much bigger, requires a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit ), all kinds of other issues, and now then we're forced to make the decision, and I can tell you, assure you, it's crystal clear -- no matter what decision we make -- we're the bad guy. If we vote in favor of, we're the awful people who are totally pro development. If we vote against, oh, we're the awful total people who's trying to kill development in Miami across the board, and that's the real reality, and I'll guarantee you, when we read the story lines tomorrow, that's how it will break down. What I'm trying to get at is a decision that helps us move down the road in the right way, and does everything -- if, by way of example, I were to move a motion to accept this project, then it would be incumbent on us to do everything we could to address all of the issues that the neighbors wanted to address, excepting the fact that height, bulk and scale may not fit everybody's definition of height, bulk and scale. ['m real nervous about moving a motion to support this project for fear that it sends the wrong motion to the development community that we can, in fact, run into these corridors, do assemblages, and can count on the Commission to, in fact, approve whatever we want to develop. I'm very much afraid of that. For those of you who are opposed to this development, I will tell you, I'm looking straight at it. It is subjective. I'm not offended by this. I'm not offended by the way it looks. I'm not offended by the way it seems to sit on Biscayne Boulevard. I'm not offended by those things. I love the rest of the list here, and if you remember, at the last meeting, I was concerned about scale because I couldn't figure it out from either of the models. This is a pretty clear picture. This isn't terribly bothersome to me, and some of these other issues -- and Andrew, you didn't -- you never said, I think we got an answer, but the points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, what -- you just put them on the record, but I never heard how they got resolved or whether they were resolved, but some of those issues are good issues. I'm sitting up here rambling, so 1 don't want to kill -- see, I'm practicing, Vice Chairman Sanchez: As 1.L. used to say, it's time to fish or cut bait, my man. Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I know. I'm going to. I'm not offended by the look of this project. I'm concerned about some of the issues that some of the neighbors — but I have to send a crystal clear message, and there's only one way -- i can send a crystal clear message only in two potential ways. I don't want to deal with this again, and assemblage does it. If we reject this — I don't know whether I have the votes to reject it — but if I introduce a motion to. reject it and, one, that message is crystal clear. I don't want to get the law of unintended consequences going either. That sends the whole development community in a tizzy because there are areas where we have real quality development going on that we want that to absolutely continue, and we want development on Biscayne Boulevard. That's what everybody, including the people against this project, said from day one. I've had this conversation many times, while I was running for office and now that ['m elected, so the other way to send the message is to say loudly and clearly to the development community that I guess I would guarantee that if anybody else comes up -- comes to this Commission with a development plan along any of these corridors, any of our major corridors that are backed up against residential neighborhoods and have done assemblages, that I personally -- don't know if I'll have everybody else's vote -- will guarantee that I will vote against it. I don't care what the rationale is, because I don't think that the neighbors want to deal with it. I certainly don't want to deal with it. That said, I can't find the height, scale and bulk issue -- I don't see it the same way as the neighbors who are opposed to this project, and so I guess I'm going to move to -- and Lourdes, you're going to have to help me here, but I would like to move in support of this project. However, the issues related to noise and light pollution, the Women's Club, the placement of the mechanical units, the parking issue, the billboard issue -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): The existing residences, they were going to help -- Commissioner Winton: The existing residences -- I can't read my notes here. They were -- Ms. Slazyk: And the pedestrian safety. Commissioner Winton: The pedestrian safety. That's what that says. How do we -- I would like to incorporate all of those issues into -- if we're allowed to -- into our approval process. Vice Chairman Sanchez: As conditions? Ms. Slazyk: As a condition. Commissioner Winton: As conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So, there's a motion on the floor -- Chairman Teele: Second. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for approval, based on the conditions that have been brought forth, and it's also been second by the Chair. It is open for discussion. Commissioner Winton: Now -- Chairman Teele: Discussion. Commissioner Winton: And [ would like to ask another question of probably Lourdes, and that is about the Women's Club, and Mr. Chairman, 1 hope you don't mind, there may be someone that l would like to call from the audience who could help me answer this question a little better. As I was sitting here thinking about the Women's Club, would we be better served if we could preserve the Women's Club in its entirety and move it, as opposed to just saving the architecturally significant features? Move the Women's Club in its entirety to a new location, somewhere in the area and preserve the entire structure? And so, I guess the question, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, if there's someone out there who can answer the question -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton, you're entitled to ask questions to the expert witness, or the attorneys, or anyone in the chamber. Commissioner Winton: Well, I probably wouldn't mind hearing from a couple of people. Yes, go ahead. Mark Soyka: I'm Mark Soyka, and I'm the owner of the Women's Club. As a matter of fact, some of the women that actually congregate in the club are sitting with us over here. I made inquiries about moving the house. At first, it seem like it's an old trade that you couldn't find somebody to do it, but there is a gentleman that is business, he came; he looked at the building, and providing that there are no major cracks so the whole thing is not falling apart, which we didn't go through that, it's possible to move it. The question is, where is it being moved to? The intentions -- because obviously, I love the building, too, and the intentions were to try to move that building somewhere in the neighborhood. Commissioner Winton: OK, then, I know what I want to do here. Thank you for that answer. I would like to -- Joe Arriola (City Manager): Commissioner, Can I make a suggestion to you, Commissioner? Commissioner Winton: Yes. Mr. Arriola: You can move it to the entrance of Legion Park and make it a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office. Commissioner Winton: Oh, yeah. Well, here's what I was thinking. I would like to appoint a local citizen subcommittee here that will meet and help us figure out precisely where we move the Women's Club to, and report to us within 30 days, because I don't want to hold this whole thing up, so if there are those of you out there who would like to volunteer to be part of an initiative to move the Women's Club and figure out where we're going to move it to, somewhere within the area, you know, raise your hand. And, so -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, could I suggest that that be separate and apart from this item? Commissioner Winton: It will be -- it is going to be separate and apart. I'm not going to make - - it will be a condition. This piece will be separate and apart. I'm going to make the condition that the W'ornen's Club -- and I haven't done that part, yet, but I'm dealing with something separate now, before I go back to the primary conditions. The separate part is, I'm trying to figure out, one, if it could be moved? And two, where we're going to put it? So, I'm going to get a committee put together that can determine where we can move the Women's Club to, so -- Chairman Teele: Would you yield? Commissioner Winton: Yes, sir. Chairman Teele: I would recommend that you request the Clerk to just quietly make a list with the names and addresses of those people who would like to be on that committee, and keep -- consistent with the attorney -- deal with it separately, but let's get the names of the people right now. Thank you. Commissioner Winton: So those of you who want to serve, would y'all mind kind of sneaking out back here, and could somebody from the Clerk's Office meet you right here so you could give your name, and address, and phone number on that committee? Thank you. So, now, conditions . Condition on moving it, I want to -- and Mr. Developer, or Madam Attorney, I want y'all to be listening to this part, because the condition is that the developer pay the cost associated with moving the Women's Club. Ms. Dougherty: Can we have a maximum? I believe it should cost about $30,000, and what I propose is a maximum of thirty we would contribute. Commissioner Winton: No. Ms, Dougherty: No. Commissioner Winton: No, Ms. Dougherty: No. Commissioner Winton: I'm going to suggest that y'all do it for the least you can, with a maximum of seventy-five. Chairman Teele: But they do it? Commissioner Winton: They do it, because I don't want to be short and then, all of a sudden, I've got another battle going on about where we're going to find the money to get it done, Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE) getting it done. By the time they get a bid and argue about environmentals -- Commissioner Winton: Andrew. Mr. Dickman: I have one request, if I could. Commissioner Winton: Yes. Iv1r. Dickman: That the move -- the actual lifting up and moving of this structure would not occur until their construction loans are in place, so that in the event that -- Commissioner Winton: That's a great point. 1 buy that. Mr. Dickman: It -- you know, It's an unnecessary move, Commissioner Winton: I buy that. Ms. Dougherty: I didn't hear you. Commissioner Winton: His request is that the actual movement of the house not begin until you have your commitment for financing the development. I think that's fine because his point is, if for -- Ms. Dougherty: 1 agree. Commissioner Winton: -- Lord knows whatever reason development, no sense in moving the house, so I would agree with that, and you -- so they accept that condition, as well. Ms. Dougherty: There are two questions that I have. Commissioner Winton: OK. Ms. Dougherty: I want to make sure that you all -- we're talking about the building that was proposed with the bonuses, and secondly, if you all want us to put the town houses on 4th Court, you have to increase the number of square feet to by about 9,000. Commissioner Winton: I didn't understand. Ms, Slazyk: One of their proffers in these conditions with the neighbors was that they would line 4th Court with town houses to also just reduce the impact on that site. In order to do that, she's saying they need more square footage, so the -- Commissioner Winton: How many more, 9,000 square feet? Ms. Slazyk: 9,000. Commissioner Winton: 9,000 square feet? Ms. Dougherty: You would have to make that a condition to put the town houses with -- Commissioner Winton: If you want town houses, I mean, I don't have a problem with -- 9,000 square feet doesn't make any difference here, if you're going to get liners on there. Ms. Slazyk: Right. If you make the condition that town houses be added there, then we review that when we sign the building. Commissioner Winton: OK. Andrew, shake your head yes or no. Do you want town houses? If you're going to get town houses, it takes 9,000 more square feet, so if you want the town houses, I`m going to allow them to have 9,000 square feet more. Mr. Dickman: We're in disagreement with that. Commissioner Winton: OK, so no liner town houses. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Dickman: We're in disagreement with the whole project. Commissioner Winton: That isn't what I asked you. Oh, OK, fine. I -- you know, if you want the to ask you -- if you want it, then you better give me an answer. If you're going to stay focused on the big picture, then I won't ask you the small points. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: I'm going to give you one more shot. Your demand -- your request was for liners on 4th Court. Do you want the liners? Mr. Dickman: We're opposed to this project, for the record. We opposed it. Our main issue was scale, bulk and height. Nobody is willing to work on that issue, so for the record, were opposing it, and I don't want to get here and start redesigning this. Commissioner Winton: Got it. No problem. So, i think that the -- I don't think we do the liners. I don't think you have the 9,000 square feet or whatever that number is, so -- Ms. Dougherty: OK, but we do have the bonuses that we requested. In other words, the reason that we -- our project -- in other words, we're asking you to approve the project as recommended by the Planning Advisory Board, which includes 20 percent of the bonuses that we could otherwise allow. In other words -- Commissioner Winton: Lourdes, help me here. Ms. Dougherty: -- the project that we proposed has 30,000 square foot of retail on the outside. That -- Commissioner Winton: On fronting on Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. Dougherty: That's right. We can turn that inward. We don't need the bonus. Because it's outward, we need the bonus of 20 percent. Commissioner Winton: Explain why that is. Ms, Dougherty: Because if it's accessory retail defined as something that you enter from the lobby, it does not require -- it's not counted torwards FAR, but because it's not accessory retail, meaning that you can reach -- reach it from going into the public street, then its counted towards FAR and we, therefore, need the bonus. Commissioner Winton: All right. Lourdes, you have to help me here. In terms of square footage of the project, if you took the bonus away, which meant the retail on Biscayne Boulevard would go away. Ms. Slazyk: Either that or they would have to remove the equivalent amount of square footage from units in the project, which was the intent of that condition. Chairman Teele: Are you saying units or height? Commissioner Winton: I don't know. I'm just totally confused. Ms. Slazyk; The project requested a Major Use Special Permit for the Planned Unit Development, which included an FAR increase. The amount of square footage they were requesting as FAR increase is what they put as their ground floor retail that opens out to the public. If they eliminated that retail opening to the public and just pulled it inside for use of their own residence, then it doesn't count as FAR on a residential project. The Planning and Zoning Department -- Commissioner Winton: But do they end up with the same square footage of the building? Ms. Slazyk: Same square footage, but it doesn't count if it's accessory to the residential project. Commissioner Winton: Well, let me see if I can do this just from a pure number standpoint. Let's say the project is 200,000 square feet. Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Commissioner Winton: That's what the project started as. Now, I'm going -- 200,000 square feet. I don't have any retail on the outside. I've just got a 200,000 square foot building with no exterior retail. Now, I'm going to get exterior retail, which gives me the bonus, 20 percent bonus Ms. Slazyk: You don't need to do the retail to get the bonus. What they did was applied their bonus to the retail. Commissioner Winton: Oh, but the bonus could be applied to more units. Ms, Slazyk: It could be applied to units, so if you get rid of the bonus, you could tell them to get rid of the retail or get rid of the units, additional units, which, in this case, is about 30 units. Ms. Dougherty: Just to make it clear, this -- Commissioner Winton: I could tell them -- wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. 1 could tell them to get rid of units or retail? Ms. Slazyk: You could make a condition for either one. The recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Department was that the bonuses not be granted. The developer was saying that if the bonuses aren't granted, all we're going to do is keep the exact same building and turn our retail inward, and what we're saying the intent of that -- Commissioner Winton: Which gets rid of units for them. Chairman Teele: No. Ms. Slazyk: No, it doesn't. For them, it wouldn't get rid of units, but the intent of that condition was to eliminate some of the units and maybe bring the project down by an additional floor, and that -- Chairman Teele: But hold on one minute. Ms. Slazyk: Which went to scale. Right. Chairman Teele: I -- hold on -- I thought the motion was to approve -- Ms. Slazyk: Correct. Chairman Teele: -- the Director's recommendation. Ms, Dougherty: No. Ms. Slazyk: No. Well, it's the Planning -- well, do you want -- the Planning Advisory Board recommended giving them the bonuses. Chairman Teele: Excuse me. Excuse me. Ms. Slazyk: So -- Chairman Teele: I thought I was seconding a motion to approve the Director's recommendation. Ms. Dougherty: I thought you were approving the project as proposed. Commissioner Winton: When I made the motion, I wasn't focused on the -- I kind of left the -- the bonus thing kind of floated away in my mind, so, I'm -- that's why I'm brining this up. Chairman Teele: But there's two separate recommendations. Commissioner Winton: Yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but we need to clarify all those conditions that you wanted to put on the record, that you have not completed them yet. Commissioner Winton: Weil, I'm trying to understand this bonus thing here, and then I'll know where I'm going to want to go, but I don't get it yet. Chairman Teele: The two recommendations -- as I understand it, one recommendation, which is a professional staff, would require them to have the resident -- the retail oriented along 13iscayne Boulevard, but would not grant them the additional units, the 30 units -- 30 -- Ms. Slazyk: Right, Our recommendation -- because it wasn't specific as to what should come out from the bonuses, the developer's saying they would just turn their retail inward and it would be exactly the same building. What l'm saying, the intent of that recommendation was that it be applied to reduction of units, The Nanning Advisory Board actually disagreed with that and recommended approval with the bonuses so they would keep the retail and the units. Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm not talking to the Planning Advisory Board. Ms. Slazyk: Right. I'm -- Commissioner Winton: I'm talking to you. Ms. Slazyk: That's why -- no, but that's what Lucia assumed that your motion was for the Planning Advisory Board. Commissioner Winton: Well -- but I'm trying to understand, if I follow your recommendation, what is the net effect on this project? And I still don't get it. I understand -- Commissioner Regalado: It says here, Johnny, recommended approval with conditions. That's her -- Commissioner Winton: No, no, I know -- Ms. Slazyk: The net effect is about -- Commissioner Winton: But I want to know what happens to the building. If I'm following her -- Ms. Slazyk: About 30,000 square feet less of FAR, which could be about 30 units or elimination of retail altogether. Ms, Dougherty: Or turn the retail inside out. You could have exactly the same building, only put the doors on -- Commissioner Winton: I don't get that -- I don't understand -- and I'm not talking to you. I don't understand how what Lucia says can be the fact. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Commissitrr er Winton: How can you eliminate 30,000 square feet and the building's still the same; I've just turned my retail in? 1 don't get that. Ms. Slazyk: In a major residential building or hotel building .e you know how in the lobby there's a little gift shop? Commissioner Winton: Yeah, I do, but I -- Ms. Slazyk: Those things don't count as FAR, so if they remove 30,000 square feet of FAR by just turning all of this little retail into internal, accessory retail for the use of the residents, then they could keep the exact same size building, and be 30,000 square feet less of FAR, and that's what their interpretation -- Commissioner Winton: They lose FAR, but they don't lose any units? Ms. Slazyk: They don't lose any units or any square footage. Commissioner Winton: Oh, that's that other quirk in our current stupid Code -- Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Commissioner Winton: -- that -- OK. The same issue we dealt with across the street. Ms. Slazyk: That's correct. So, what I'm saying for the record, is the intention of that condition was that units be eliminated and the retail remain the way it is. Commissioner Winton: Now that I understand that, then my motion -- because I think it would be awful public policy to have that long run there with no retail at the street level. I think that would be totally ridiculous, so my recommendation is going to be with conditions, but that the bonuses stay in place, provided that those bonuses are all directed towards the retail at street level, particularly on Biscayne Boulevard. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: All right. So the motion would be for approval with the conditions that we read earlier, regarding the mechanical equipment, parking validation, pedestrian safety, assistance for the existing residents for relocation and three months' notice; the Women's Club -- to move the Women's Club; developer to pay the cost up to a maximum $75,000; address in the condo docks, the light and noise issue, and not renew any billboard lease for the existing billboard on the property, and with the condition that the bonus square footage be applied for street level on Biscayne Boulevard, in particular, retail and pedestrian services. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Winton, are you satisfied with those conditions? Commissioner Winton: Yes, I am. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Teele, you're recognized. Chairman Teele: I have two concerns, Lucia. The first one is, there are some small businesses, one place that 1 get my car washed. Ms. Dougherty: And I believe he's here today supporting the project. Chairman Teele: But I'm more concerned about will the structure still have a car wash in the area somewhere? You guys are laughing, but let me tell you, there's about 10 people working there and feeding their families everyday -- Commissioner Winton: From your district. Chairman Teele: -- that live in this district that I represent, and candidly, with all due respect to Mark Soyka, who's standing here, that development, as it currently exists, is probably the best example of what America should be in terms of a workforce in anywhere in City of Miami, including the beach. The workforce is totally reflective of this community, and I'm just trying to make sure we're not going backwards from all three major groups of the community. It is a -- the entire 55th Street station is a replica -- is a vision of where America should be. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Tomas. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Soyka: Leo is here. Where's Leo? Leo Car Wash is staying. If there was statements that Leo Car Wash is not staying, it's not true. I was talking to Leo the other day, and one of the things that we are considering, considering -- because I love the car wash as much as you do, and I like the whole move of the car wash. Chairman Teele: But 1 don't have as many cars as you do, or as many nice cars. Mr. Soyka: There was one other thought that I spoke to Leo, and we're going to try and see if it's possible, because there's one more building that is at the end of the parking lot that we can also keep Leo at Soyka, and possibly move Leo to the building which we call the funeral home, which is right by the Soyka parking lot, but right now, there's no changes, and if anybody read something like that, it was wrong, wrongly stated. Chairman Teele: Thank you for clarifying the record. The other issue is -- you may just want to hang around -- the billboard issue. What is going to happen and why -- I mean, if we're trying to work citywide in this area to minimize the impact -- and I'm really surprised, because some of the loudest critics of the billboard appear to be in the audience -- what is the -- why can't -- Mr. Soyka: The billboard -- Commissioner Winton: I don't think he's here. Mr. Soyka: The billboard themselves are -- at least it's -- we all know is very, very large companies that basically -- if you look at all the billboards, they're all, more or less, owned by the same people -- Chairman Teele: Two or three companies. Mr. Soyka: -- at least in this area, and they have a ]ease, and there's nothing that a landlord can do unless -- Chairman Teele; But be very careful, Mark, because if we were to ask you to proffer a cancellation of the lease, provided the billboard company agreed to it, would you be willing to do that? Mr. Soyka: 1 -- for me, the problem -- if the City has a way to deal with this billboard when it comes to -- Commissioner Winton: We have a mike. Chairman Teele: Yes? Mr. Dickman: We have a court reporter here who would like to change her paper, if you could give me five seconds? Chairman Teele: Please. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Teele: Just hold it -- Mr. Dickman: Thank you, Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you ready? Chairman Teele: Mark. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Court reporter ready. Mark. Chairman Teele:. Mark, the point is this, we can't require you to do anything. Pm not sure if we can or can't, but I wouldn't want to. But if you would be willing to proffer, voluntarily, which is one of the main things that the opponents -- one of the things that they -- six or seven issues that they read into the record, that you all would -- the billboard -- that you all would proffer to cancel the lease -- billboard lease — Mr. Soyka: Not to renew, will be the word. Chairman Teele: No, no, no, not to renew is different. Not to renew is totally different. Ms. Dougherty: That's the only (INAUDIBLE) Chairman Teele: That's not what I asked, Lucia. You can do whatever you'd like -- if you want to proffer that you all would offer to cancel the lease of the billboard, if the billboard company would agree to allow it without recourse to you or indemnifying you, in any way, would you be willing to do that? Mr. Soyka Yes, Chairman Teele: Then, counsel, would you like to state on the record what the proffer would be? Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman -- Mr, Soyka: No, t must, if -- I'rn not sure, legally, how it works. Chairman Teele: Counsel, Ms, Dougherty: There is a lease -- as I understand it, from talking to him in the past, there -- he has a lease with the billboard company. Commissioner Winton: We understand that. Ms. Dougherty: He has agreed to -- not to -- Commissioner Regalado: Lucia, Lucia, Lucia -- Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Commissioner Regalado; As you know, the City is involved in possible -- Ms, Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- out -of -court settlement with companies. What the Chairman is saying, that if the company would agree, if the company -- Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: would agree, at no harm to the company -- Ms. Dougherty: At no harm to Mr. Soyka, yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- and he has said, yes. Chairman Teele: No harm to him, Commissioner Winton: No harm to him. Commissioner Regalado: No harm to him. Chairman Teele: Primarily. Commissioner Regalado: And the company -- I mean, no harm -- well, I mean, to him -- Mr, Soyka: If it can be done and 1 don't have to suffer legal suits because of it -- Commissioner Winton: That's what we're saying, Mr. Soyka: -- then I'm tine with it. Commissioner Winton: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, Chairman Teele; Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anyone else? Chairman Teele: Thank you very much. Commissioner Winton: So are we clear that that's a part of he condition? Ms, Slazyk: Yeah, I put in here that -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: We're clear with the motion and the condition. Ms. Slazyk: -- no renewal of the lease renewal of the lease. However, if the company agrees, they would remove it sooner. Chairman Teele; t would just like to get counsel to proffer that on the record, so that it's not some -- Lucia, I'm trying to get counsel to proffer that on the record, so that it isn't -- Ms. Dougherty: We agree with that. Chairman Teele: You agree with what? Ms. Dougherty: That in the event that the company allows us to cancel the lease without any harm to Mr, Soyka, we will do so. Chairman Teele: Thank you. Ms. Slazyk: And one other clarification, for the record, on the movement of the Women's Club, forget to put when i read it a moment ago, that there would be no movement until the construction loans or financing is in place. Now, we're clear. That's -- Commissioner Winton: Until when? Ms. Slazyk: The construction loans financing in place. Commissioner Winton: Right, Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Any further discussion on the item? Commissioner Winton: Let me -- yeah, I want to ask Lucia one more -- I mean, Lucia. I want to ask Lourdes another question. I want to come back to this because I was quick to jump there, and I'm bothered by the public policy ramifications. If this project gets built, the 4th Court exposure there, where somebody had asked, I guess some of the proponents have asked them that -- to put town houses lining 4th Court there, and then they said, well, we need 7,000 square feet more, or whatever that number was, in order to tine -- do the town house liners along 4th Court. From a -- I can't tell what's along 4th Court right now. What is there? What is that wall along 4 th Court, if you don't have liners? Ms. Slazyk: Without the liner, I think there was some retail back there, but that's also the side where they had curb cuts into their parking area, so what the liner does is it changes from a commercial to a residential character, which -- you know, the homeowners didn't specifically ask for liners on 4th Court. What they wanted was -- it came out when they were talking about the impact, and this was something developers proffered to reduce the impact because residential has less of an impact than the retail on more cars and people parking in the neighborhood, and it went to that whole broader issue, so it would either be retail or residential. Commissioner Winton: What's your recommendation? What makes the most sense along that street or do you know? Ms, Slazyk: That street faces more of a commercial corridor than a residential corridor because that's what faces where Soyka is -- Commissioner Winton: Soyka is and all that is. Ms. Slazyk: -- and the parking lot for Soyka, so I tend to think that in -- from a pedestrian activation standpoint, with commercial on the other side, it would probably make more sense to be commercial. Commissioner Winton: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Winton: Done. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let me just state something for the record. Commissioner Winton, I commend you for making a very, very tough decision. First of all, this is a project that everybody knows in this community. I mean, it's a very popular project, but let me tell you, the decision that you made, I feel it's the right decision, because you addressed a lot of the concerns and conditions that were really up -- back and forth, but we live, I think, in the best country where we are able to have democracy, where we're able to come here and debate things healthily . We're able to have healthy debate, and we're able to compromise, and this is a perfect example of what we could accomplish here when we work with the public. Of course, the public's not always -- you know, you're not always going to get what -- your side. There's always going to be opposition, but let me just say that I think that, in the future, this project will bring great things to this -- to that community. The Upper Eastside is a very vibrant, up and corning community. As a matter of fact, it's the fastest race economic corridor, I think, in the City that's growing, so this would enhance that area. The project itself, I don't see it out of scope. I think it's going to be great for that community. I think that people are going to move into the area. It's going to provide more jobs. It's going to provide businesses. It's going to help the business around there. It's going to provide a pedestrian connecting one point to the other, so I just wanted to stare that, you know, in the last Commission meeting that we had, you know that I was in favor of the project, with certain conditions, and basically when it comes in front of us and we have all these recommendations that have been made, this project went through all the hoops, and basically, it came in front of us with all the recommendations, so once again, I want to commend the Commission, and I want to commend the public for being very involved, and at the end, I think it's going to be something that maybe, not today, the side that ended up not winning or getting what they wanted, but five or six years down the line, everybody's going to be very proud of that project being located in that up and coming area, which is a great community, Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Commissioner Winton: Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Winton: I want to say one more thing. 1 will -- in response to what you said, 1 don't feel any greatness out of this decision, 1 can tell you. I'm troubled by the project, and I want everybody to be crystal clear, particularly those from the development community. I will do - we have a new overlay in place, but I will assure you that I will do everything in my power to people who try to do assemblages and put bigger projects on Biscayne Boulevard in those zones where you abut single-family neighborhoods, I am not -- I will do everything in my power to put every obstacle in place to that kind of development, i€y'all in the development community are sweeping up Biscayne Boulevard, or Coral Way, or any of these other corridors we have single-family neighborhoods right there to do assemblages. Build on the parcels that are there. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And, Commissioner Winton, we -- when we say "we," we say this ( UNINTELLIGIBLE) in this City. We're working on that through the Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan and the new City Master Plan. I mean, we're addressing these issues because we know that the growth in the City -- I mean, we're -- every day there are new projects coming into this City that are either in the pz (planning & zoning) process, or some of them are already going up, and the City's growing, so we're going to have to address -- and I think with those two mechanisms in place, we'll be able to address -- to protect some of the areas from some of this development that's going on, so having said that, there's a motion and a second. Commissioner Regalado: Chairman. Chairman. I think that you're right, Johnny, but it's not your fault. It's not our fault. It's just the way the Code, and the way that laws and regulations . are written, but I tell you something. I would have voted for it, for one reason: The developers went back, and went back, and went back to accommodate neighbors. Had not been for that, I probably, most likely would have voted like you, no, because we're trying to do the same thing for this part of town, this neighborhood, but it was the attitude of the developers in this area, who refused to meet with the residents, who even didn't want to disclose who they were, that brought into themselves this moratorium that we have, if we have a moratorium on 27th Avenue, so 1 -- you know, you're right. Count me in the next one, in terms of residential, because I have to follow a pattern. I cannot jump from one side of the other -- of the issue, and I have always have. I think that we got to fix this. I think that we need to establish some rules and regulations, but the message here, I think, is not "we did this for the developers." The message here, 1 think, is we approved this because the developer went back, and back, and back and met with the residents, and as a result, they got 50 percent -- I mean, Bush won, by 527 votes, the presidency, I mean, you know, if they got 51 percent of the residents. I think that the message should be, developers should meet with the residents, Developer should listen to the residents. This is not happening in 27th Avenue. It did not happen in Coral Way, and that is the problem that we have now throughout the City and, you know, today, at 5 p.m., I think, there is a group out there that is holding a press conference. All associations of residents are uniting to fight this kind of thing, so the next time it comes here, it's not going to be only Johnny's issue; it's going to be Joe's issue, Angel's issue, Art's issue, and my issue because we're going to have all the neighbors association behind -- opposition to one project, or supporting one project, so 1 just say that its important that the message here is understood, that developers should talk to the residents and, you know, 51 were convinced, well, God bless them, but that (UNINTELLIGIBLE), so don't feel bad because you did send the right message to the developers. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. There's a motion and a second, with conditions. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just before the vote, if I may. Just for the record, if I may, Commissioners. The comments that were made regarding the neighbors that were for or against, even though that's information that you've indicated that was helpful to you in making your decision, as 1 understand it, you're making your decisions based on the fact that the evidence that's been submitted on behalf of the applicant was persuasive to you, and you do agree that that is the decision -- basis for your decision; correct, sir? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well stated, counsel. All right. There's a motion and a second, with conditions. Madam Clerk, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: You have a unanimous vote. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. (APPLAUSE)