Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2010-06-02 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com IMCORP GROTED IL E y. • Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 2, 2010 9:00 AM SPECIAL City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Marc David Sarnoff, Chairman Frank Carollo, Vice -Chairman Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Richard P. Dunn II, Commissioner District Five Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SP.1 10-00686 On the 2nd day ofJune 2010, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in special session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Sarnoff at 9:25 a.m., and adjourned at 1:04 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Johnny Martinez, Assistant City Manager/Chief oflnfrastructure Pamela L. Latimore, Assistant City Clerk DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING MIAMI 21. 10-00686 Memo.pdf 10-00686-Submittal-Planning Department.pdf 10-00686-Submittal-Truly Burton.pdf 10-00686-Submittal-Barbara Bisno.pdf 10+-00686-Submittal-Stanley Price.pdf 10-00686-Submittal PowerPoint Presentation by Elvis Cruz-M21 Coral Way T40 pdf.pdi 10-00686-Submittal-Charles Tavares.pdf DISCUSSED Chair Sarnoff All right. The purpose of this meeting was to set an agenda to talk about Miami 21, how to improve it, where do we go from here. I thought the one thing we should all at least see -- apparently, we received the 2010 Driehaus Form -Based Codes Award. I thought I would at least show this into the record, that the City ofMiami is the winner of the -- 2010 award winner. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved. That doesn't mean there are some issues that can't be dealt with. And the purpose of the meeting today is to really look at what needs to be done, what can be done, and what are the issues we need to face. So with that said, I think the best way to start the meeting is to allow the City to make a brief presentation, and then we will have people line up and speak. Now, one thing I'm going to require, now is the time to sign up with the Clerk. If you don't sign up with the Clerk to speak now, you will not be afforded the opportunity to speak. Second thing, do not walk up to the podium. Form a line behind the podium so that we know exactly how many speakers we have. There's no intention right now to create a time issue for anyone. But one of the ways and one of the efficiencies that we can create is lining up behind people gives us an idea of how many people are going to speak, and that will give us an idea how we can run the meeting and how organized we can remain with it. So everybody, please sign up, if you've not already done so. And equally, don't leave one speaker behind the podium by themselves [sic]. Make sure there's somebody behind them so we know there are still speakers to speak. Everybody agreed? All right, Mr. Cruz, of Cruz Radio and TV (Television), has indicated that it's acceptable to him. Please let the Miami Herald know, and we'll proceed. Mario Cruz: Allapattah News. Chair Sarnoff Allapattah News, okay. "[Later...]" City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning Department): With this, what I have is a presentation. We had asked for some questions -- I know there will be more. But I just want to make sure that -- to try to give some format, we have put those questions in this presentation. I'll try to go quickly because I know you have them in front of you, but basically what you will find is first is the questions that we received with the answers. Then we also addressed some of the issues that I know keep coming back, and it was in some of the questions that might not have come up to us formally, but I know there have been concerns with that, which is nonconformities and also affordable housing. There will be in the presentation one question that looks isolated, but it did come through Barbara Bisno, which I know is the one with illumination. And finally what we have, which it came from one of the -- from Commissioner Suarez's office, which is the green. So this is our attempt to be able to put everything together and be able to say, okay, this is the presentation. But we understand there might be more. We're just trying to kind of give it a format. With that, I'll start. On single family and duplex, the questions that we were asked was an analysis -- and this is based on a single -story structure, 50 by 100. Are single-family homes getting smaller? No. Typical lots, front, side, rear setbacks are the same as the former code. Allowed lot coverage is the same on ground floor. As a benefit in Miami 21, you actually can go out with the porches and be able to have -- be more prominent. That would be under Miami 21. What is the maximum size of the structure under 11000 and Miami 21? Size of the sfructures is the same in both scenarios, 2,500 square feet on a typical 5,000 lot. What is the minimum on paved area under 11000 and Miami 21? The green space requirements, 11000, you have 15 percent of gross when you go to the middle of the street, as you know. Miami 21 is 25 percent of the lot area. What documents require for approval to expand a structure? The documents require through the building permit, same as is today. The plans, the surveys, et cetera. This is not a Miami 21 requirement. The process to eliminate trees as part of expansions, trees eliminated. Process for tree removal, same as Chapter 17 of the City Code. Trees may be eliminated, replaced, or relocated. What has changed in the definition of residential floor area? Buildable areas are based on lot coverage and setbacks. Floor lot ratio is not using the calculations for single-family homes and duplexes. How would this affect adjusted square footage reported to tax assessor? Miami 21 does not affect square footage used by tax assessor. Criteria for methodology using assessment process is established by Florida Statutes. Will the house appear bigger now? No. Will the taxes go up as a result -- is the question that I just read. What will make a house nonconforming? That I know has come up through a lot of the hearings we've had. Nonconformities are created any time zoning regulations are modified. As such, nonconformities regularly occur and are not limited to adoption of new codes but have existed from amendments to City's first zoning code, 1934. Just means sfructures were built under requirements of different zoning regulations. Structures have and continue indefinitely as were built. Keep a nonconforming house forever; will I be able to sell it? Yes. Will this be a material defect that needs to be reported by the realtor? No. This is not a material defect. Sfructures can still be modified, enlarged and altered with no percentage limitations by waiver. That's on single-family homes and duplex. What happens to the nonconforming house in 20 years? Nothing. I think there was a confusion, and we'll go into that with the nonconformities, of what was use and what was structure. Do I need to do anything to keep my house? No modifications are required. Sfructures remains indefinitely. I want to clarify at some other hearings, single homeowners were thinking that if the code changes, now I have to put my house back into the code. No, you do not. If you expand or build, you have to meet the code. But your house, if you don't do anything to it, stays. We will not force you to do anything. Can I convert attached garage to a granny flat? Neither 11000 nor Miami 21 allow the conversion of attached garages to granny flats. What are the requirements to do so? Scenario was not allowed under 11000. It's not allowed under Miami 21. If it exists illegally, what would be needed to legalize it? No provisions exist to legalize a structure built outside what is allowed. This is different than a structure that is allowed but constructed without a permit, meaning if it's something that is allowed now and you had it, you can legalize it because it's allowed. But if it wasn't allowed, you cannot legalize it because it's not allowed, period. IfI build a new home, what is the difference between new house -- my -- a new house and others in the block? We're saying, City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 there's bound to be difference. Every house is different. One possibly clear difference being with the Miami 21 Code will be that Miami 21 would require the garage to be lined with the main facade of the home. So that would be one -- probably the most prominent one that you cannot build the garage in front of your main facade. Will I have a place parking on the side of the house? One parking space has to be in line with main facade of home. Will there be regulations to number of trees? Same as 11000. One free in front of the setback per each 50 feet of frontage. New construction requires three trees, same as 11000. Can I have a fence in front of my house? How high? How about around the property? Yes. Aluminum or iron picket and post fences are allowed up to five feet. Others will be three and a half. Side and rear, eight feet. This one I'll clarify. The -- on the front of the five feet and a half that you can do it with the post, the idea is that you can see through. That's why you can go higher if you have aluminum, iron, or post fence. That's what it can go to five feet. If you decide to do a solid fence on the front, then it can go only to three and a half. But side and rear is eight. And it's not part of this question, but it was one issue that was brought up in other hearings, the hedge. There's no height limitations to the hedge. Could I have a circle driveway? Yes, if there is sufficient lot width to meet driveway separation requirements. Could I have a swimming pool and pool deck? Does it count against the minimum paved area? Yes, you can have it. It is not considered green space. The same is true under 11000. This I know many of you have seen it, but this was part of what the City Commission had asked us to do, to have an architect design under Miami 21 and show the difference on single family and the 21 for single and duplex. And what you see basic [sic] the difference is an issue clearly on single family that was brought to our attention, and a lot of neighbors, was the idea of the McMansions and how they were proliferating on the neighborhood and getting out of context. So what we -- part of the code deals with -- which is not part of your questions, but is part of these diagrams, is on the second story, there's a limitation on the 30 percent just to be able to have less of a massive volume, and that was something that came up through our -- last five years of the Miami 21 review, the consideration, to be able to reduce the issue of the McMansions. On commercial properties, will commercial single -story structures under 21 be smaller in size than under 11000? If so, how much? You'll be able to accomplish the same or increase the amount of square footage. Maximum lot coverage was increased to allow buildings to provide liners along the ground level and still provide required parking. What is the minimum unpaved area that a commercial property can have under 11000, under 21? There is no minimum unpaved area. When comparing codes, both required 10 percent of gross lot and net lot, respectively. For commercial property, open space can be provided, paved or unpaved, in the form of expanded sidewalks, plazas, planting beds, et cetera. Can a not -conforming commercial property be expanded? Yes, any nonconforming structure can be expanded without the need for a special permit if in compliance with 21. An expansion of the nonconforming portion of the structure may be done, but will require a special permit subject to limiting conditions. Nonetheless, the regulations under 21 are more flexible, and I'll go into that. Nonconformities, single-family, duplex, and multifamily. On that one, if you see on the left-hand side, is destruction in the event of a disaster. And this is something we went through on the other hearings. If 50 percent or more of assessed valuation, under 11000, the home may not be rebuilt except by public hearing and special exception. Under 21, allows the reconstruction of a house and does not stipulate percentage requirement regardless of the amount of damage. If it's less than 50 percent of the assessed valuation under 11000, the home may be restored if begun within six months. Under 21, the application for reconstruction must be filed within 12 months, so we're giving more time, and the time period may be further extended by City Commission. Repairs and maintenance. This has been a question that we have heard asked. Under 11000, only 20 percent of the gross structure -- I'm sorry, gross square footage of the nonconforming home can be repaired within a 12-month period. Under 21, it allows nonconforming homes to be maintained and repaired; does not stipulate a percentage or timeframe. If -- in other structures, not single family and duplex or multifamily, as I was reading before, if less than 50 percent of the assessed valuation under 11000, the replacement or reconstruction is allowed by Class II -- it's an administrative permit -- within six months from date of destruction. Under Miami 21, in both scenarios, less than 50 -- or if more than 50, replacement or reconstruction is allowed by waiver, also administrative, within 12 months from City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 date of destruction and does not stipulate a percentage requirement. And also, City Commission may authorize extensions to that. Now these are the nonconforming uses. We were talking about structures. Less than or equal to 50 percent of the assessed value, under 11000, replacement or reconstruction is allowed by Class II within six months from date. If it's more, under 11000, it's allowed -- may be allowed by special exception, provided that reconstruction is essential to the reasonable conforming use within six months. Under 21, the use may be restored by warrant. It's also adminisfrative. Application for restoration shall be filed within 12 months of destruction and does not stipulate a percentage requirement. In general, on single family, duplex, and multifamily, alterations or expansions not affecting the conformity, it's a building permit. If it's affecting the nonconformity, it would be a waiver, adminisfrative permit. If it's a repair or maintenance, it's allowed. No percentage limitation. On other structures, the same. As long as it doesn't affect the nonconformities, a building permit. If it's affecting the nonconformity, less than 50 percent is by exception; more than 50 is not allowed. And the repair, again, it will be consistent, there's no percentage and it's allowed. On nonconforming uses, building permit, as long as the degree of nonconformity is not increased. If 50 per -- if less than 50, it's by exception; it's more than 50, it's not allowed. These are single family and these are clearly diagrams. And we were trying to show -- the question again kept coming up, "My house is a nonconformity because it might not meet exactly the code. Can I expand?" And these are diagrams to show, yes, you can. You can just move forward. You can build -- you know, as long as you're within the setbacks, you can do it. On commercial and industrial, same question, and so we kind of did these diagrams to show -- you have existing warehouse, yes, you can have an addition. And these are some commercial examples we showed of photographs of existing commercial properties that would be allowed to be built under 21. Clearly, what you see is that the buildings are moving forward. You have the liners, you have the activity on the street level, and these are diagrams. Again, the question came up, can we do, you know, a pharmacy, a convenience store, a grocery -- I mean, yeah, store, bank. And what we tried depicting here, on this one, we actually took some real examples of projects that have come; other ones were pretty much diagrams where we're trying to place the requirement for parking, the access, into the main -- and that's what these drawings are depicting. The issue of affordable housing and Miami 21. Miami 21 is a new approach to affordable housing. We have -- we're offering incentives based on the T6 areas of the City, the public benefits program, which encourages affordable housing in all neighborhoods. As you may remember, anything that is above T6-8 that's not abutting a single-family or a duplex home can contribute or can receive an affordable housing bonus in order to increase height. Intent is to include affordable housing in areas that are viable and attractive instead of placing them in industrial or commercial areas where other neighborhood services and jobs may not exist. This is one of the many factors that ultimately create a diverse, attractive, stable, and well -deserved community. Public benefits programs allow market -rate development to pay into the trust fund for additional capacity which will expand the funds available for affordable housing. And these are the questions that have come up, and I know there will be more. Miami 21 has taken all C-2 properties and rezoned them to either T6-8, T6-12, or Dl. C-2 properties where housing was appropriate -- remember -- and I - - C-2 is general commercial. They're clearly most dirty commercial uses. Residential was allowed but not by right. It was a special exception. Many times those projects that were placed in C-2 were not appropriate locations. So it's not -- it wasn't by right, meaning not all the time you got it or it was -- it depends really where the location was. And when we were doing the Miami 21 map, in those areas that clearly that's where it was going, we amend the C-2s to reflect that residential should be allowed by right; other ones, which are the D1s, and I'll answer them, were the ones that were more of industrial nature, where the character was more of a work/live. C-2 properties where housing was appropriate were zoned T5 or T6 accordingly. Housing on C-2 was not allowed by right. Residential uses on T5 or T6 now allowed as of right, making process easier for developers to include residential uses, will ease the approval process and facilitate receipt of state and federal housing incentives because you will not be required a public hearing. You pretty much have it by right. Affordable housing developers are competing with market rate developers for the same class of properties. Properties are too expensive for affordable housing developers to use. Under 21, we would argue that more land is available for City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 residential development as of right. Market demands and location will determine land values. Hold true for any zoning classification under 11000 and 21, C-1, C-2, similar development capacities; therefore, market conditions, such as location, are more likely to have a determining factor on the value. Applicants requesting C-2s were not limited to affordable housing. Anyone could have come and asked for them anyway. The public benefits program gives an advantage and incentive that allows additional capacity by providing affordable housing an advantage that no one else has. If you're a T5 abutting a DJ, you can build an additional story. That's only frue if you're building affordable housing. T6-8 can receive 30 percent additional capacity which gives affordable housing a competitive advantage. Again, if you build the affordable housing, you don't pay. You can just use it and you can build it. If you are market, you want to use it, you have to pay for it. The DI properties are zoned for indusfrial and only allowed live/work at 18 units per acre. City Commission recently approved the work/live density to be increased to 36 units per acre. However, the zones are intended for work/live environment as a way to create and maintain jobs. And you may remember this was a discussion we had on the Wynwood area, close to the -- the desire was there were some -- and we have the maps to show later -- some corridors were -- clearly went from industrial to T5, but the -- within the two corridors, DI was the desired result. The idea was what you wanted -- the market was more work/live where you could have it, but clearly the work was going to be the most important one, so that was true of Wynwood. It was frue of some areas next to the Little Haiti Cultural Center, and it was -- the interest was to fry to promote jobs and be able to promote that type of prototype where someone can live and work in the same place. DI is far too low a density for Miami's affordable housing developers who were permitted at 150 units acre under C-2 and typically built 150 to 130 units acre range. C-2 zoning did not allow housing to occur as of right. It required a special exception. Therefore, there was no guarantee that housing could, in fact, be built in these areas. In C-2 areas where housing was not appropriate, the City could deny those exceptions. DJ, T5, T6 allow for housing to be built as a right. It essentially determines where housing is appropriate. Affordable housing development should be occurring in areas to provide diversified housing opportunities, maximizing availability of different housing types, communities, to expand the supply of federal housing and meet a wider range of the conditions need. And I also would like to clarify -- and I don't have it on the other slide -- is that many areas that today are indusfrial -- and that one, if we look at a map -- that you could not do residential. So Miami 21 is actually allowing for another category, which is the DJ, which continues to be an industrial use, but allows for the 36 units per acre because a lot of these were zoned industrial, and I know you have seen many applications come for industrial properties seeking as rezoning to residential. And I just want to clarify that because sometimes it's a misunderstanding. People forget that in that one we actually are allowing a use that was not allowed before. Illuminated signs. This is the one kind of solo on signs because the question did come, and it was a concern over the illuminated signs within 100 feet from residential areas. There was a request to prohibit that. We do not recommend that change as we didn't do last time it came in front of you. We would be concerned that we have commercial corridors that are close, abutting residential areas that would be affected if we prohibit illuminating signs from being there, and we're just showing some examples. Green requirements. Over 30 municipalities now require LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for private development, LA (Los Angeles), Boston, Tampa, Portland, Washington. Expedited permitting already exists as part of the City code. Incentive exists for gold and platinum and also for properties below 50,000 square feet, and that's part of the public benefit trust. If someone wants to exceed it, you get a percentage more of FAR (Floor Area Ratio). Fees collected assist the public benefit trust fund. Enforcement of the regulations may not be feasible with some sort of verification process. This one might be hard to read. And I know we have -- you know, we did kind of an analysis, but we also have some copies that were made of the different cities, what other cities are doing regarding the LEED. What we're proposing under 21 is to -- it's -- one is a requirement for those properties that are 50,000 square feet. You have to do silver. The other one is the one where if you go beyond the 50, ifyou want to do gold or platinum, you get an incentive. And that's clearly on the public discount -- that's the incentive. You do it and you get more square footage. If you have less than 50 but you still want City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 to meet silver, then you will -- there's also an incentive for that. You get square footage. On this particular one is the one -- and I know this office -- you know, the Planning Department has worked with Commissioner Suarez on it, and I know there were going to be some concerns as to what can we do and as to -- you know, we're saying that a performance bond. I think there's several ways that, you know, we would be -- we could discuss, I think, some other cities that you will see, instead of having the -- a performance bond, some -- I believe Washington, DC, has -- calls it a bond, not a performance bond. They call it maybe a green bond, something that has a different name, but it doesn't have the same connotations of performance. Some other cities, what they do is they ask for a LEED checklist in lieu of the bond requirement, and then they just withhold the CO (Certificate of Occupancy), and that's to fry to not perhaps penalize with the financial, but be able to say, well, you know, there's a -- you have to do it, but we'll have the checklist at the end. When you go with the building permit, you need to say, yes, in fact, I have done these things that I have asked. That's one possibility. Another consideration could be a fine for failure to comply. Some other cities do that. And we obviously would be willing to also consider alternative financial instruments in lieu of a bond. I think the -- what we were frying to show, there's -- and that's the conversations we've had with the Commissioner. There's many ways that we can deal with this requirement. I guess on our part what we would like is to maintain the requirement and be able to find a way where, you know, if it's a requirement that we, the City, can hold the people accountable for doing it. And that is the end of the presentation. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right. Commissioners want to ask any questions or they want to let the public speak first? Commissioner Gort: I think you should let the public -- Chair Sarnoff All right. Commissioner Gort: -- speak first. Chair Sarnoff Let's start the public hearing. As I said before, by now you should have signed up. If you've not signed up, please do so. And I'm going to ask you now to start lining up behind each podium so we can see how many public speakers we have. Mr. Cruz, you're recognized for the record. Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street. I am not -- like I said -- I wrote there, I am not a City taxpayer. I am a fee payer. Anyway, but still I reside within City limits, and I also the chairman ofABDA, Allapattah Business Development Authority. We do affordable housing. It was a lot of talking about affordable housing. We got to have that in paper, black and white. Now this is just -- well, you know, a lot of money being used Miami 21. I don't know -- the other day I heard the Mayor say over $12 million. I don't know what we're going to get. I'm going to see what is the benefit for the regular resident of the City ofMiami. Is this going to expedite the permits? It's going to expedite the permits or it's going to be more difficult -- you have to get a land -use attorney all the time that you need even to put a doghouse in the backyard? You need a land -use attorney. You have to call one of those big political contributors here that do -- because I know. Igo to the City Clerk and I check the campaign contributions. Whoa, I am bad because I am information there. And there -- let's see, like in Allapattah, to change a C-2 for C-1. A guy, friend of mine, a businessman there is paying $431, 000 now the other day because somebody in Zoning told him that that's zoned for a flea market. Now after (UNINTELLIGIBLE) he bought it, they tell him "No, that's not a flea market outside. It's only for inside retail, " after he spent $431, 000. He bought the property from Allapattah Baptist Church that wasn't paying taxes and he's going to put it in the tax roll, paying taxes, and more than 20 people working there. And you know, they -- and then I go to City Attorney. There is not any pro bono attorney that want to give any job or any service to the people there. No. City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. Mr. M. Cruz: Hmm? Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. Mr. M. Cruz: In conclusion. That's good. Tell the lawyers too in conclusion, okay, because I time it. Don't worry about that. I time it. But oh, even playing field. I don't want to be treated better or worse; same treatment than all these lobbyists and lawyers that can talk till their heart content. Chair Sarnoff okay. Mr. M. Cruz: Okay? Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. M. Cruz: Well, make sure that it is to -- what the little guy in Allapattah get from all this mumbo jumbo, millions of dollars for Plater-Zyberk or -- Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. M. Cruz: -- all these thing. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Mr. M. Cruz: Okay. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Cruz. Elvis Cruz: Mr. Chairman, are we under a two -minute rule today? Chair Sarnoff We're going to be flexible and based on what we're hearing. Mr. E. Cruz: Okay, thank you. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, secretary -- Chair Sarnoff Folks, got a whole nother podium up here you can line up to. Mr. E. Cruz: Speaking on behalf ofMiami Neighborhoods United. Gentlemen, as most ofyou are aware, this hearing came about because there were ten separate MNU (Miami Neighborhoods United) amendments which were deferred from the April 22 agenda. I'm going to ask you a question thatl do not expect you to answer, nor do I want you to answer because my purpose with this question is not to embarrass anyone. But the question is how many ofyou have read this entire document, the 462 pages, five pounds ofMiami 21? It is a cure for insomnia. I have read it no less than three times. MNU has other people that have gone through it with a fine-toothed comb. So for us to come up with only 30 proposed amendments out of 462 pages, only 10 of those amendments having made it to the agenda, we feel, is very reasonable. I'm not going to go through all ten amendments today, although I would be very, very happy to. But don't want to take up that much time. Again, if you want me to, I certainly will. I'd just like to go through two important ones. The first one has to do with T4 0 zoning. And if you can look at your screen, T4 0 zoning is the best thing in Miami 21. For the first time ever we have low-rise commercial zoning in the City ofMiami. Prior to Miami 21, commercial zoning included unlimited height. Here's an example of it. This is on Atlantic Avenue in Delray Beach. Unlimited zoning, unlimited height tends to encourage speculation and decrease -- ironically, City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 decrease the possibility of commercial development. My favorite quote from Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, `Many cities up -zoned in the hope it would spur development, but we now know it was an incentive to speculation." And as Johnny Winton said, "Nothing ruins neighborhoods faster than speculation." We've been requesting the T4 0 zoning on corridors abutting single-family homes. Specifically, there's two amendments on the agenda for Coral Way and 27th Avenue. And those historic neighborhoods of the Roads and Shenandoah and Silver Bluff should be protected. Here's what is allowed under Miami 21. Ask yourselves if you lived in that single-family home, would you want that next to your house? The tall buildings you see are a T5 on the left, T6-8 on the right, and that is what is allowed under Miami 21 as ofMay 20 with no appeal whatsoever. I'll talk about appeals shortly. But just so you know, right now, as of today, a builder can walk into the Building Department and say I want to put this up next to a single-family home, and this is what was allowed under Miami 21. That homeowner, that association has absolutely zero access to you, our elected officials, to do any sort of appeal. The whole concept of checks and balances so fundamental to our US (United States) Constitution has been thrown out the window. Miami 21 will be a blanket building permit allowing those eight -story buildings next to single -story, single-family homes with no possibility of appeal. T4 is what should be next to T3. It makes perfect sense. This is what we're hoping to avoid a repetition of that single-family home in the foreground dwarfed by that building. Let me remind all of you that only six days ago I came before this Commission on an appeal. You may remember that I handed out a public notice that came from the City, and I'd highlighted at the bottom of that public notice, that we, the people, had 15 days to appeal. That was the way things were done. That was the law of 11000. We had, again, access to our public officials. And this is the exact sort of thing that we were appealing that day, a building that did not have the required sloping setback right up against a single-family home, even with the ability to appeal. The Planning Department is human. They are capable of making mistakes. They made the mistake here, and I could have shown you many other buildings throughout the city, specifically Catalonia, to my friends in Silver Bluff where that was done. I don't have to remind the Commission Chair about Mercy Hospital, where the citizens came to public hearings and spoke out against the Mercy Hospital up -zoning. The citizens argued that was spot zoning. The Commission at the time, although not the Commission Chair, agreed. Three out of five agreed. It went to court. The Court said, absolutely, that is spot zoning. Our Planning Department would not recognize what the citizens and the courts knew, that it was spot zoning. The comprehensive plan requires -- and again, these are the things that I've read to you at other public hearings. The comp plan requires protecting and enhancing the quality of life in our neighborhoods, controlling large-scale development, and protecting and enhancing existing viable neighborhoods. And what can happen if the City allows a violation of the comprehensive plan? This is what can happen. This is not trick photography. This was a development built in Martin County, the Pinecrest v Shidel case, where the citizens alleged a violation of the comprehensive plan. They took it to court. The developer said, nah, we're going to build anyway, and they did. And they lost in court. And the judge said, tear it down. And it was torn down. This is a various thing, this comprehensive plan. When myself and my fellow MNU people come to City Hall and talk about the comp plan, we're kind of pooh-poohed and ignored and brushed aside. How could we possibly know what we're talking about? Look at this photograph. This is very, very real. And here's the ruling from the Fourth District Court of Appeals. I won't read all of it, but just some of the highlights. They lost the intangible aspects of property ownership, privacy, solitude, peaceful enjoyment. It was a drastic change in the character of the neighborhood, the change in density and intensity of the overall diminished enjoyment of the land. Those damages cannot be quantified nor remedied by monetary damages. This is very real. That feel -good language that's in the comprehensive plan, you cannot brush it aside. So there are some who think that MNU is opposed to Miami 21. Absolutely not. We love the core principles ofMiami 21, and I'm going to show them to you now. We did not make this up. What I'm about to show you is from the Miami 21 website itself. You can access it online as we speak. I just checked; it's still there. Let's look at the first slide. On the left, you see what is obviously right outside of a downtown area because of the high-rises in the background. And what is Miami 21 proposed on the right as an illustrated principle of good planning? Five -story City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 buildings. And every other example of good planning, according to Miami 21 itself shows two - and three-story buildings all along the corridors outside of downtown. This looks like Coral Way. It's got the landscaped median. And look at that, two-story buildings. The Coral Way that we all remember growing up, when Commissioner Gort was playing football at Miami High, all two- and three-story buildings. It was a wonderful area, and it thrived. Even today, Southwest 8th Sfreet is primarily two- and three-story buildings. This particular slide does show a four-story building. It looks like it's at the intersection of a major crossroads of two major arterials. But that's what Miami 21 recommends. And so we have this great hypocrisy where they tell us this is how it should be, and it's completely backed up, by the way -- Miami 21 was completely backed up by the New Urbanism in Florida Guide from the Council for New Urbanism. It's completely backed up by the Miami -Dade Urban Design Manual, which I've shown you here before. All the theory of good urban planning shows low -scale corridors right outside of downtown, and yet, what does Miami 21 propose? They've proposed what showed you earlier, those high-rise buildings right up against the single-family homes. In some cases, Miami 21 has done what the City Planning Department told us for years they would not do. The slide in front of you shows T -- SD-12 having been converted to T4 R. SD-12, very briefly for the audience, is commercial parking allowed to exist in what was supposed to have been the residential neighborhood immediately behind the commercial. And when SD-12 was enacted in bits and pieces, we were always told this will protect the residential integrity of the neighborhood because the underlying zoning stays in place. We now know it was the thin end of the wedge. It was the camel's nose under the tent because when Miami 21 came along, in almost all instances, SD-12 was up -zoned to T4. And why is that bad? Because it no longer has the single-family or duplex zoning that was there before, and it allows the corridor to be eligible for the bonuses that take it higher. Commissioner Suarez, this is right in your neighborhood, perfect example of whatI'm talking about, where they up -zoned SD-12 to T4 at the intersection of Flagler and 57th and other places along 8th Sfreet. So please do the right thing. Please protect Miami's neighborhoods. It'll make economic development more likely. IfI may, Mr. Chair -- am I allowed leeway to show you one more? Chair Sarnoff I'm going to give you 30 seconds, Elvis. Mr. E. Cruz: Okay. Well, I won't be able -- Mr. M. Cruz: Been ten minutes already. Chair Sarnoff He got about seven and a half. Mr. E. Cruz: Okay. I won't be able to do it in 30 seconds. Well, let me just make it 30 seconds then. Regarding the concept of the appeals, again, this is something that has been in place for many years. People think that we are asking for something new. No, to the contrary. We are asking for a continuation. Unidentified Speaker: Use my time. Mr. E. Cruz: Thank you. Am I allowed to have two --? Chair Sarnoff We're not going to do trading time. Mr. E. Cruz: Okay, no problem. Just continue what -- the rights to address our government, our elected officials, that we've had for many years. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. E. Cruz: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff All right, you're recognized for the record, sir. Stanley Price: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Stanley Price. I'm an attorney representing the archbishop and the Archdiocese of Greater Miami. We're here today seeking the repeal of Section 3.5.5 of the Code, which is entitled, in shorthand, a view corridor ordinance. In February of this year, we delivered a letter to the Mayor, which is now being distributed to you, relating to our concerns. Just a little historical background. The Archdiocese, as you know, owns all of the property south of Vizcaya. For approximately two years, Vizcaya approached the Archdiocese with the proposal of buying some of the Archdiocese property immediately contiguous to Vizcaya. Negotiations ensued for approximately a year and a half which concluded because the parties could not reach a fair price. Without notifying the Archdiocese, the Vizcayans approached the Commission, and the Commission sponsored an ordinance without any notice to the Archdiocese. The ordinance is incomprehensible if you read it out of context. There were no exhibits attached to that ordinance, and that went through the process and it was enacted by the City. What this Commission has done, in effect, is done the bidding of the Vizcayans to purchase property without any compensation at all to the Archdiocese of Greater Miami. When we did a public records request to the Mayor, he received the information. The attachments are attached to this letter. Clearly indicate there is only one property in all of the City ofMiami that qualifies for this ordinance, and that is the property of the Archdiocese of Greater Miami. This is an attempt to purchase property without any compensation to the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese has indicated that we're not going to sit quietly by if this ordinance remains in effect. We think this was bad faith. We don't like to negotiate with someone and then someone comes -- goes behind our back and has an ordinance like this passed by the Commission. We ask that you repeal this ordinance. The Archdiocese, as indicated in the letter, is pleased to sit down with the appropriate City officials to work out reasonable constraints on future development on that property, but to have us dictated by a third party on how property can be utilized, we think is bad faith and something the Commission should not (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Commissioners, I have several items that I would like to deal with, and I will try to be as brief as possible. The first item is in Chapter 4, Table 4, and it deals with commercial establishments in T5 and T6, and it is a limitation of a maximum of 55, 000 square feet by establishment. We would ask that you remove this limitation as it discourages commercial development. We understand that establishment --a retail or commercial establishment greater than 55,000 square feet does have impact. And while there is in another section of your code permission to go from 55 to 100,000 under the area plan, we feel that an area plan that was created for properties greater than 9 acres is not appropriate. And let me give you an example. Storage facilities are normally greater than 55,000 square feet, but they have very little, if any, impact on the neighborhood because of the nature of the use. A Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, a Target normally would be over 55, somewhere much less than 100, 000. But again, to put them through an area plan would be much too much. We feel that a public hearing for an exception, which would give both your staff the ability to review and require limitations and mitigations of any negative impacts, and it gives the public an opportunity to appear and voice their opinions, would be sufficient. Another example. The aquarium in Atlanta that many of you may be familiar with, which is a great recreational site, would not be able to be built under this 55,000-square-foot limitation. We want the predictability and we think the predictability should be in the code. Another issue of concern is the cross -blocked passage. And this is at Section 5.5.1H On blocks commercial -- and this is commercial property. Again, T5 and T6. If you own an entire city block that is 340 feet or longer, you are required to put a pedestrian pass -through in the middle of the block. So you're basically cutting up your property by creating a 25 foot alleyway/passage that is open to the sky. It can only be covered up above the ground floor by a 25 percent pedestrian walk-through. But what this creates is that if you own an entire city block, you would have to basically build two City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 separate buildings with two separate core, two separate set of elevators, two separate loading areas, et cetera, making the cost very high, almost doubling the cost of the development. There's also the issue of liability. Your code, Miami 21, requires that that 25 foot pass -- cross -block passage be dedicated by easement for public use. This is a tremendous imposition because it is private property. It is being then demarcated for public use. You have no rights to tell anyone not to go through there, but you're still retaining the taxable responsibility for the land as a property owner. You're also retaining the liability of the slips and falls. We don't feel this is fair or reasonable. And may I add, that the same cross -block passage on properties that are 650 feet or larger require a vehicular public easement. So now it would be cars going through your private property open to the entire world. The other issue is that when you dedicate land by easement for public use and public purpose, if the buildings ever come down, the only way you can release that private easement that is dedicated to the entire public is by having the entire public release it. And in the past, your plat -- your Public Works Department, when we have to undo plats that have those kinds of commitments, just simply say you cannot undo it 'cause you would need each and every member of the public release. So we would ask that you carefully look at the pub -- at the impacts on the property owners. This is tantamount to a taking. Same issue applies to sidewalks, and this is in your thoroughfare section, section -- Chapter 8.1, on the fourth paragraph. Again, it applies to T5 and T6. And it says that sidewalks occur at the edge of the right-of-way. However, an additional dimension of ten feet setback in the first layer shall become an easement. That means that where the current sidewalk ends today and your base building line of private property starts, you have a 10 foot setback. We've all lived with that for years. The difference now is that, again, the private property owner will have to dedicate by public easement those first ten feet to widen the sidewalk. Not only are you having to build a public sidewalk on your private property, but again, who pays the taxes, who keeps the liability? And if you ever abandon that building or it's demolished or destroyed, how do you get an easement back from the entire world? So we would ask that you ask your staff to look at these areas and remove these public easements from the code. The other issue that I would like to discuss with you is the issue of public benefit bonuses sold by the City versus the TDRs (Transfers of Development Rights) sold by private property owners. There is a section -- several sections in your code which allow the transfer of development rights from historic property -- or environmentally protected properties, which is not in your zoning code. It's in your actual code. I believe it's Chapter 23. Then in Miami 21, you have these bonuses that can be sold in order to increase the square footage on building and the height on buildings. The City has created these bonuses by law. In other words, the City has the right to sell something that it created on paper, and it did not cost the City anything. So any value the City puts on that square footage is 100 percent gain. On the other hand, that puts the City in direct competition to property owners who now have the ability to transfer development rights from the historic properties for the same bonus purpose. However, the private property owner that purchased that property before it was historic, before a dis -- a historic district was identified, paid full market value. And therefore, to even break even, has to sell any development rights at the market value that they paid for it, or somewhere less, or where the market dictates. But certainly, the private property owner is tied to a value that is predetermined by the market or the mortgage that they have versus the City, which can create any value for these. So I would ask you to consider and give true meaning to those transfers of development rights by requiring that as long as TDRs are available for sale in the City, those have to be purchased and used for bonuses before any square footage is sold by the City from the creation of said square footage. I think that's the only fair and reasonable thing for the -- Chair Sarnoff Wouldn't the value that's set in the TDRs dictate that by the market force? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Yes. Chair Sarnoff Isn't the fact that, for instance, MiMo (Miami Modern) has a 1.7 multiplier or a 2.25 multiplier indicate to any reasonable person -- like let's say Commissioner Suarez went out there and he wanted to buy some bonuses, he'd say, well, I'd rather get 2.25 for every one of my City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 dollars or 1.75 for every one of my dollars versus the City that's selling me 1 to 1. Doesn't the market itself self -regulate? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: The market will self -regulate. It always does. But the City does not have to follow the market, at all. There is wording in there -- Chair Sarnoff But isn't -- but what you said, which is require that the TDRs be sold first,won't that happen in and of itself? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: No. If a build -- ifI own a piece of property and I want to go higher, and all the TDRs on the street are at market value, let's say, for the sake of discussion, $50 a square foot, and the City is selling the same thing at $22 a square foot, I'm going to go and buy it from the City. I'm not going to buy it from -- Chair Sarnoff Well -- but what's going to happen is that's going to lower the market value, but your rights are always going to be more valuable because you could sell something at $2 -- at -- you could sell 200 eggs where the City can only sell 100 eggs. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: It's -- Chair Sarnoff So if it's dollar -for -dollar, and you're going to go to a person and say, would you like some eggs? And they say, okay. And the City sells you 100 eggs for $1, but you can sell 200 eggs for $1, who are you going to buy from? Ms. Garcia -Toledo: If the dollar amount is the same, of course, I'm going to get two for one. Chair Sarnoff Your 200 eggs are going to be worth more than that $1. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: But it always will not be sold at the same value, Commissioner. That's what I'm trying to say. Chair Sarnoff Nor should it be. Nor should it be. You should always -- the value should always be given to the TDR. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: To the TDR. Chair Sarnoff Right. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: That's all I'm asking. Chair Sarnoff But you're asking this City to dictate something that will happen by a market force. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Not if the City's selling for less. Chair Sarnoff No. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: There comes a time -- Chair Sarnoff What you're asking is for the City to artificially inflate a TDR. The TDR will fall by in and of itself based on Keynesian economics. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Agreed. Chair Sarnoff It will always be worth more than the City's bonus. Straight up, nice, republican, City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Keynesian capitalism. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: I beg to disagree, Commissioner. I think that the -- Chair Sarnoff Well, Smith would disagree with you. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: -- fact that the City can control by determination of its City Manager on an annual basis the value will alter it. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: So just for consideration. There's also two issues of law that I would like -- and we've discussed this with some of you and hope that you will follow through on it. One is the conflict language on Chapter 2 that needs to be clarified. I don't think Miami 21 can supersede state law and state statute. And, two, is the covenant in lieu issue. If we want to continue to have in the commercial areas projects that are significant, we will need to have the covenant in lieu document in order to have multiple ownerships of buildings without violating platting requirements. So I would ask that you follow through and make sure that that is included. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Ms. Garcia -Toledo: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. You're recognized. Daria Jahann: My name is Daria Jahann. I own properties on Northwest 2ndAvenue. I represent myself. I'm also here with some other property owners. We've had a number of neighborhoods meeting. There's over 50 of us, and we all have lost significant money with Miami 21. My zoning was C-1. I purchased this property a long time ago. And I have a paper from the City ofMiami, affirmation of the C-1 zoning 2005, where I could build 120 feet high and 50,000 square feet. And today, you've cut that down to 35 feet high and 16,000 square feet, in excess of two-thirds reduction. And today, with the real estate values the way they are, having to lose another two-thirds on top of that, it's just impossible for us to handle. I pay $2 an hour, and I've paid it year after year, every hour, 24/7, 365 days a year, taxes and insurance on these properties. Now I don't know where to go from here. In our meetings, the neighborhood wants to hire an attorney and sue the City, and we just look -- looking at the atlas, you had properties that were zoned C-1 previously, like close to Biscayne Boulevard. And now they can build 36 stories high. Our C-1, 36 feet high. It just doesn't make sense. So what I'm asking you is that you either compensate us or do something that we can -- I cannot wait for the market to catch up. It is impossible. No one has crystal ball. Everybody says Miami 21 will make everything look beautiful, property values go up, but maybe not. The fact is that today, as I stand here, you've taken nearly 70 percent of my value out of these properties. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Sir, I'm sorry. Could you please state your name and address for the record? Mr. Jahann: Daria Jahann. Commissioner Suarez: And your address? Mr. Jahann: 4215 Northwest 2nd Avenue. Commissioner Suarez: 4215 Northwest 2nd Avenue. Thank you. Mr. Jahann: Yes. You're welcome. City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Commissioner Suarez: You're recognized for the record. James Goldstein: Yes. James Goldstein. I'm president ofMidgard Group, which has numerous companies owning property within the City ofMiami. Our address in Miami is 14 Northeast 1st Avenue. And I'm here speaking and asking you to take special consideration of-- we have a property similar to many others that has a MUSP, Major Use Special Permit. We're concerned about -- of course, we're currently sitting -- we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get here to this point. Our property currently sits at 17th and Biscayne Boulevard. We're obviously in the middle of a recession/depression, hoping that the future years here find a little bit more favor into the market. But in the meantime, we're certainly concerned with the efforts and the energy and dollars that we've put into this, so what we would like to see and what we're asking for is a consideration of extension of the MUSP approvals and some type of amendment or consideration for -- as the market changes into the future and we have to function with both -- in our case, it's a mixed -use project. We'll be working at multiple fronts, both hotel, major retail and residential, and even possibly some office. And looking at how those markets change will certainly have at least some types of modifications that will be needed to the MUSP in the future, and what we're looking for is, hopefully, that similar to what you've done with some other properties in the City, in the WorldCenter and so on, that you consider modifying these MUSPs under the 11000 plan and would allow us to have some stability with lenders, with clients that may occupy tenants, that occupy space and so on, and allow us at least a little bit of -- or a thread of certainty in the uncertain world of being a developer in the, hopefully, near future. So we're looking, again, for an extension of the MUSP approvals, to allow us to move into, hopefully, more economically viable times, and the ability to adjust those approvals under the code that we received our approvals for things that come up as the market dictates. Chair Sarnoff What was your name, sir? Mr. Goldstein: James Goldstein. Chair Sarnoff And you are aware that there was an extension put in Miami 21 on MUSPs, right? Mr. Goldstein: I'm not aware that there was an actual approval of-- we're looking for something that we think is -- Chair Sarnoff Let me get you an answer 'cause I think you may be pleased. Mr. Goldstein: Okay. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There was an extension. Right now, in addition to the two years when you get your MUSP, there has been an additional extension granted by Commission, so you can have up to eight years. Mr. Goldstein: Okay. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And there's also another provision on the Code that if you do any amendments to your MUSP, you can either -- if you don't -- if you want to continue through 11000, you can come in and the process will be as it is today under 11000. But if you decide to come closer to Miami 21 regulations, it would be treated as an administrative review, so there will be not a public hearing. So that's also an incentive to that, if there are any changes, that it will be closer to 21. Mr. Goldstein: And those amendments already exist -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: They already exist. They're already in and the -- City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Mr. Goldstein: -- in Miami 21? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, they are. The Commission voted on these amendments. I believe it was on October. So these were done. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Goldstein -- Mr. Goldstein: We haven't seen them. Chair Sarnoff -- who's your lawyer? Mr. Goldstein: I am with Bilzin Sumberg, Vicky Toledo -Garcia. Chair Sarnoff I see that you've gotten with Bilzin. They should have told you that. All right. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Next. Mr. Goldstein: All right. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Goldstein: Yeah. Ifyou would like, I could also mention that I've also been a builder of green technology and that we've done some LEED projects. We received LEED silver certification on new construction last year. We converted a couple of buildings for LEED certification as well, and I do have a concern that setting up bonds, cash bonds and so on is not really an incentive to go forward in that. Remember that LEED is an outside agency that reviews. That's part of the largest expense of going LEED is the review of -- and the setting up -- the commissioning of that certification as opposed to the exact -- the actual changes that you make in the building and the plans and the systems and so on. And at the end of your building, you could be sitting there for a very long period of time finding out whether you have certification or not. It took us, on a silver certification, almost a year after completion of the building, so it's something for you all to consider as well. Again, it's a -- one body that does the review. It's -- obviously, we're committed to sustainability. Think it's a great idea. We would do nothing that didn't have that component either existing or new, but we are concerned about creating incentives versus disincentive. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Goldstein: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized for the record. Lucia Dougherty: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I never came here and asked you not to pass Miami 21. Whatl had suggested earlier was that you create a mechanism, perhaps a dual code until such time as the kinks are worked out in -- under Miami 21, perhaps a couple of years. Well, now that we're working with Miami 21, we realize that there are some kinks in Miami 21, and I'm going to just point out three of them to you, two of which were discovered by the Planning Advisory Board at the last meeting that appeared before. But here's the problem. There are no easy mechanisms to fix the kinks. And so I'm going to just point out one of them. I know Commissioner Gort, I've had discussions with you. This is in your district. I just want to point out that this C-1 property right here is on 17th Avenue. It is owned and private property. City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 It's now private property. It was a church probably five years ago, and it was zoned GI (Government/Institutional) probably five years ago. However, right now it's a private property. It should not be zoned CI. It should be zoned T6-8. It's rather obvious it should be zoned T6-8. It's on the commercial corridor, just like everything else. However, the way that your Miami 21 now exists is that you couldn't -- and by the way, a affordable housing developer has entered into a contract to purchase this property and would like to build an affordable housing project on it, and we have filed this rezoning, so it's going to be coming before you. The point is if he hadn't figured this out before Miami 21 came into effect, you could develop it under a T4 O. You could rezone it to a T5, but you could not get to aT6-8 for approximately two years because what Miami 21 has done is it's basically tied your hands to correct this. Because let's say you decide you want to buy this piece of property, you have to wait six months if you don't get in the right classification. You have to wait six months to file your application. You can only file it up to T5, and then you have to wait 18 months after that to go up to T6-8. So what I'm suggesting is that you build in some more flexibility today for at least a couple of years to allow you to get the kinks out. There were two -- in another property thatl had that came before the Planning Advisory Board, we discovered that there was actually two separate zoning classifications in one building. One building had a T4 and a T6-8. The Planning Advisory Board looks at the map and they see another lot that has one lot -- one single lot had two different classifications on the lot. Those are things that cannot be changed or corrected easily under Miami 21. What you'd have to do is, again, you've got the six months and then the eighteen months to get to where you should be. And all I'm suggesting is that at least for a couple of years, let yourself have the flexibility of doing away with the 18 months or doing away with the successional zoning. In other words, you can only go from T4 to T5, then wait 18 months and then go from T5 to T6. That would not have allowed, for example, the parking lot behind Versailles, which you recently did, which is a good thing. In other words, you had to wait, you know, three years, two years at the minimum, to be able to put the parking lot or expand Versailles in a way that was right and correct. So I'm suggesting that you build some more flexibility under Miami 21. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Truly Burton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Truly Burton, on behalf of the Builders Association of South Florida, with offices at 15225 Northwest 77th Avenue, in Miami Lakes. I'm going to give to the Clerk our amendment package for your use, as well as submission into the public record. This is the same package, Commissioners, that we presented to you in individual meetings, so this is a bit of a rerun. But guess I'm really glad to see that this special meeting is being held today because, like I said, we've presented these amendments to you in various occasions, in various public meetings, and we would like to have them heard of course on behalf of the Association. Again, we appreciate this special meeting and I think it's great. I would do -- since there are six amendments, I'll just give them to you in a very brief topic -- brief summary. I've also attached the markups and the proposed language that we would like to see included. If you'd like any additional detail, of course, I'm here to answer any questions. The amendments really are in three categories, nonconformities, time extensions, and green buildings, the first one relating to nonconforming uses and structures after -- in the event of a disaster and reconstruction after a disaster. Ms. Gelabert was very clear on the issues of reconstruction after a disaster for residential, for single-family and duplexes. However, our concern really does relate to any nonconforming commercial structures. In the event of a disaster, they can't really be replaced or rebuilt unless there is -- unless they obtain the approval of a waiver by the Zoning administrator. Since so many commercial sfructures and uses are going to be deemed nonconforming after Miami -- now because Miami 21 is effective, that means everyone's going to have to line up and get a waiver. Because of the uncertainties and the delays in getting a waiver, especially after natural disasters -- if we all remember, those of us who lived through Hurricane Andrew, this is a bureaucratic nightmare. You don't want people to go through this. So our suggested change is that all sfructures be treated as the same as residential. Second, for nonconforming uses, the 20 year limitation. Right now Miami 21 provides for a discontinuation of any nonconforming commercial sfructures -- commercial use, I'm sorry, 20 years after its City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 effective date unless the approval has been renewed or granted again by the City Commission. However, when you take a look at mortgages and leases, these terms are typically longer than 20 or -- they're typically longer than 20 years. Our suggested change is really to connect that timeframe to 40 years, which is the recertification as included in the Florida Building Code. Every 40 years a building must be recertified as to life safety, probably electrical, ifI had to guess right, and so forth, so we would add -- ask -- respectfully ask that change be made. Second, as to time extensions, I do want to thank the Administration and the Department for the extension on the MUSPs. We appreciate that. I think the gentleman before me, Mr. Goldstein, indicated that these are extremely uncertain times. He's correct. The banks are not lending and any time extensions that you can get to keep your project moving is greatly appreciated. As to Class IIs, special exceptions and variances, we do ask for an additional time extension for an additional -- for a total of two years. We are concerned that there are some other pending amendments that would actually reduce the time for extensions of Class II, special exceptions, and variances. Please note that the Builders Association of South Florida has worked with both Miami -Dade County on two ordinances to extend both building permits as well as development approvals. Not reducing the time, extending the time. I think the public interest there is served that you have projects that can more quickly be built if you have those valuable extensions approved. Finally, on green buildings, this is one place where I don't think the code goes far enough. Right now the only code that's acceptable, that's allowed by right -- and I say by right, but it's specifically -- I'm sorry -- specifically, I guess, allowed is LEED. LEED was the only game in town for a long time. However, that's not the case at this point. The Florida Green Building Coalition and the National Association ofHomebuilders green building standard are now two nationally recognized standards. They're verified by third parties, and I respectfully ask that they be included in the code as acceptable. When you have an equal alternate, then the City Commission then has to approve that equal alternate, and that's an additional process. You really want to incentivize people to build green. And if you give them additional options, that would be -- that, to me, is the most important. Not every project is -- each code has different strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think every -- I don't think LEED fits into every -- I'm not saying this correctly. But each project is not necessarily LEED compatible. Finally, we would like to eliminate the bond. I think Hs. Gelabert offered you several options. However, again, we offer -- we think that additional options including a variety of different types of codes so different projects can use those would make sense. Also, I provided for you as examples of additional options already adopted, one of them by the City of Homestead in your package that we've worked with them on, and another one that's a proposed ordinance by the City of Hollywood offers an enormous amount of options. Some of them include reduced water impact fees based on water -saving and water -conserving fixtures that are going to be in -- that are going to be part of any sustainable project, as well as a slight waiver, a slight reduction in cost of building permit fees. So again, thank you for your attention, and if you have any questions, please let me know. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. William Alvarez: William Alvarez, 270 Southwest 25th Road. I own several properties along Coral Way and West Brickell. I recommend that zoning along Coral Way remain T6-8 0, as T6 O limits the -- limits what can be built as of right of eight stories, which is a reduction from the 11000 Code was unlimited height before. I saw some of the banners that said it was going to be a -- there's going to be some discussion, that they were going to limit the height to four stories along Coral Way. This would be a tremendous disadvantage. T4 0 will reduce the property owners' values along Coral Way and cause hardship for the property owners and the City of Miami. When the values are reduced on commercial properties, commercial lenders are calling back loans and asking property owners to pay the difference between the loan's reduced property value and the loan amount. The property owners has the option to pay the difference or the property will go into foreclosure, creating an eyesore along Coral Way. It will also cause investors to shy away from the area because of the limited height to build. The City will hurt -- will be hurt by reduced property taxes. I estimate that property values will be reduced by 40 to 50 percent. I also recommend that the zoning in the area between I-95 and Southwest 1st City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Avenue, Southwest 6th Street to Coral Way, known as West Brickell, be changed in Miami 21 zoning ordinance from T6-24 0 to T6-36 O. Miami 21's current zoning of West Brickell area does not enhance the area, nor does it give the area the foundation to fulfill the central urban core as visualized by many. West Brickell can only be revitalized and developed under the current economic conditions by allowing landowners and developers more options to build larger scale projects like hospital facilities or mixed -use office towers or retail centers. I believe changing the fransect zone to T6-36 0 is sensible approach and would make a significant positive change to West Brickell. The T6-36 0 zoning used -- use will stimulate positive growth to the area and spur economic development. The area of West Brickell has new FP&L (Florida Power & Light) facility, Southwest 2ndAvenue and 11 th Sfreet, and a Miami -Dade water facility was just purchased for that area to build one. It's along Southwest 3rd Avenue, which is right -- borders I-95 between 10th and 11 th Sfreet. These two facilities add to the infrastructure and support development in the area. All of West Brickell is within walking zone from the Brickell Metromover andMetrorail stations. I-95 is a large barrier between the neighborhoods and the transect zones. Please support density/intensity through height, T6-36 O for West Brickell, one of the most important urban cores right now in Miami. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Charles Tavares: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. Charles Tavares, 444 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida. I'm a longtime resident, business owner and property owner. And as most of you know, we've been involved in the process since -- back 2005, and we're here because we all care about the City and the communities. And I would like to thank you for holding this special meeting because there is still a lot of issues that we need to fix and before we can move forward because our city needs economic growth, good economic growth. Our city needs good planning. And I think this is the opportunity to do so. And I believe everyone here is working very hard in good faith, and that's what we're shooting for, to make our city and community better. And that's why we have worked so much for so long. And I'm here basically on two issues. The first issue is the Brickell area and particularly the Brickell West area, which we believe should be like the gentleman before me mentioned. I think it's a great area for economic growth, for jobs, for, you know, more tax base for the city when we need it the most. It's the right time because Brickell is booming. All the buildings are filled. It's vibrant. New business opening. And there's demand for new world -class projects in the area. But the proper zoning that we need and we're calling for, it's not there. And you're able to give us that condition so we can attract good, sustainable development, and attract thousands ofjobs. For instance, just a single project, the Brickell City Center, for instance, it's a $2 billion proposed project. It's going to, you know, create over 1,800 jobs. Over, you know, 20 years, it's going to generate $600 million in tax revenues, and that's just one single project. So I would like to show you some boards. I also would like to take the time from two friends and residents and people that work Brickell. Mr. Orlando Calderon and Mr. George (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and his wife couldn't be here, but our prayers is [sic] with her because she's got a very grave illness, so we pray to [sic] her. And thank you -- you know, we thank for her support and everyone's support. So I'm just going to take the time to show you some boards, if you allow me to. Thank you. Here you have -- you know, we have economic studies done by -- So here on the economic side, which is so important to us, you know -- we're all feeling this economic crisis, myself and everyone that I know. A lot of my friends lost their jobs. Our economy is, you know -- have, you know, very difficult time with people behind and so forth. And here we have, you know, a very detailed economic study that was performed specifically for the Brickell West area, showing the difference, you know, that you can make, you know, you -- just by doing the proper thing planning -wise is allowing the area to be T6-36. You know, the difference in employment and tax revenue is tremendous. You know, the difference, just for instance, is -- you know, if you give T6-36 to Brickell West, you're going to have more than 5, 000 jobs as opposed to T6-24. Over 20 years, you know, the tax that you're going to generate is, you know, more than $54 million in additional taxes to the City, and we need that. And you know, Brickell has contributed so much to the City and allow it to continue to contribute. It's a very central urban area. It's the same as City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 downtown Miami. It has the tallest and highest buildings, the most intense and dense structures. It has the best mass public transportation. It has the infrastructure, and the market is there. So our city needs it, needs it right now. We can't wait, you know, four or five years because what we do here today, you know, is going to dictate what, you know, people, the private sector is going to do. You're going to give (UNINTELLIGIBLE), okay, we want jobs, we want economic growth, we want world -class, mixed -use projects. This is good for our city. Or you can say we don't care, which I don't sincerely believe so, and we send the jobs to Coral Gables, to Broward. Chair Sarnoff Are you in --? Just slow down. Are you intending to go through all your boards? Mr. Tavares: It's -- you know, this is -- Chair Sarnoff If you're intending to go through all your boards, you need to pick up your pace. Mr. Tavares: Thank you. So this is one of the most important factors -- Chair Sarnoff Is that a yes, you're going through all your boards? Mr. Tavares: Yes. Chair Sarnoff Then you need to pick up your pace. Mr. Tavares: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And here is, for instance, you know, what the Brickell area looks like. And this is some iconic buildings. That's what Miami's known for all over the world, you know. It's like Dubai, New York, San Francisco. That's where people know us from, you know, the Santa Maria, the Four Seasons. So here you have -- you know, you can visualize what we're talking about. You know, existing right now we have on the Brickell West area 44 florists. We have 52 in Phoenix. So, you know, it will be perfectly right planning -wise to designate it T6-36 because it conforms with the existing neighborhood. It's a high -dens -- central urban core neighborhood. So it certainly, you know, needs to be designated that. And I would like to pass along some papers, and one is taken out of the Miami 21 Code principle, the cornerstone ofMs. Liz Plater. And I'm going to quote saying, "New development should be structured to reinforce a pattern of neighborhoods and urban centers, " which Brickell West is certainly, `focusing growth at transect nodes rather than along corridors." Chair Sarnoff Charles, you got to pick up your pace. I'm not going to -- you have what can see to be three or four more boards over there. Mr. Tavares: I'm not going to show (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Chair Sarnoff And what I'm going to do now is limit you to two more minutes. Mr. Tavares: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Would you like to come back and speak again? Mr. Al Cruz: I don't get mad at (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I get ahead. Mr. Tavares: So here an example -- Chair Sarnoff I'm going to reserve you time at the end. Mr. Al Cruz: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Okay. Mr. Tavares: So here is an example of what we have now. Most of the properties -- by the way, I have properties all over the city, Allapattah, Miami River, but think Brickell is so important not only because I live, I care -- I'm a, you know, condominium board member, Brickell Area Association board member, Brickell Homeowners Association, but really care about our community. And as you see, our properties today have limited height because the large properties we can't really go high. And here, you know, it's been proposed. It's completely illogic [sic] and out of context planning -wise. So -- and having said that, also, you know, we can see how Brickell is, even though that we have contributed so much. This is also some pictures that take from the neighborhood since I walk. I don't have an automobile. I just incidentally had to rent one to come here. But -- so please support Brickell. Please support the community because we want to give more to the City. You know, this Brickell West area can give you so much more jobs and taxes and, you know, good world -class development. So I urge you support for T6-36 for Brickell West. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Tavares: Thank you. Please -- Chair Sarnoff You're recognized -- Mr. Tavares: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff -- for the record. Hadley Williams: Hadley Williams, 2441 Trapp Avenue, also from the MNU team that's been working on the comprehensive plan and Miami 21 for -- I think it's five years now. As Mr. Cruz mentioned before and you're all well aware, we have 30 odd items that we've been presenting at prior public meetings. We've also presented them to each of you individually, so I don't want to take any more time here but just to summarize. We are concerned about the citizens' rights to appeal, for instance, on the waivers for nonconforming assets. The waiver is only decided upon by the Planning director with no right of appeal to the Planning Board or you, as our elected officials. So you're aware that there are many of the process issues that we are concerned with, as well as specific concerning height and density. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Steven Wernick: Good morning, Commissioners. Steve Wernick, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, City ofMiami. Two issues. The first one I wanted to touch on is parking requirements for self -storage facilities. In DI and D2, as well as T5 and T6, we have a parking requirement of one space per 2,000 square feet. If you look to the Miami -Dade County parking requirements for self -storage facilities, they have a requirement of one space per 5,000 square feet for the initial 20,000 square feet of a facility, and then they go to one space per 10,000 square feet over and above 20,000 square feet. They also have one space per 400 square feet of office area, but we feel that this would be in line with the practicality of the industry standard and the need that a self -storage facility would actually have. So that's one change that we're asking for. The second thing I wanted to touch on was clarifying Article 7 regarding MUSPs. And Mr. Goldstein was talking about a sunset date for the MUSPs. In the as adopted May 2010 version that printed out a week ago, it looks to me the sunset date, which is the same as in the October version, was no more than three time extensions for each time extension being 24 months. What we had been discussing at least with some other property owners who had active MUSPs was a sunset date that would go to four time extensions for 24 months. Chair Sarnoff I think we answered this question already, but I'll have it answered one more City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 time. Are you a lawyer? Mr. Wernick: I am a lawyer. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It's three times. What we have today, which was approved, it was the three times extension, plus the two years; was a total of eight. Mr. Wernick: But when you say two years -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The two years -- when you get a MUSP, you have the two years. Then you have three additional extensions. Mr. Wernick: Right. So if someone received the MUSP a year and a half ago, then they would have -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: They have whatever is remaining -- Mr. Wernick: Right. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- of those -- Commissioner Gort: Seven years. Mr. Wernick: So it's about six years -- Commissioner Gort: Six and a half years. Mr. Wernick: -- from the expiration of the MUSP. So what -- Commissioner Gort: Six and a half. Mr. Wernick: -- and -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Six years from the expiration -- Mr. Wernick: Exactly. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- but the life of a MUSP from the date that the Commission had granted it to you, it would be eight years because you have two years before you can seek an extension. Mr. Wernick: Correct. And then -- and I'm not disagreeing with that. We're just asking for an additional two-year timeframe. Chair Sarnoff You want some more, 15, 20 years? Mr. Wernick: Well, I think the feeling is that in the next six to eight years, there are many MUSPs that may not be able to be built because of the market conditions, so -- Chair Sarnoff But would you want to build something that was conceived of ten years ago? Mr. Wernick: No. And that brings me to my second issue, which is the modifications to the MUSP. The way that I read Article 7, and this is 7.1.3.5d, is it says an applicant may modify a special permit approved under a previous zoning code as a minor modification through the City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 warrant process. The components being modified after modification shall be in compliance with this code. So if you're changing your product from office to hotel, et cetera, I interpret this that the Planning director could require that the entire building, if the entire use was changed, be brought into compliance with the code. So I think there's a concern that it's not clear in the language in the code -- Chair Sarnoff Let's get you an answer. Ana, did you hear the question? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: (INAUDIBLE). I was answering Barbara Bisno's question. Mr. Wernick: Oh, I -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Sorry. Mr. Wernick: -- was just -- Chair Sarnoff Okay. Let's not focus on Barbara. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Chair Sarnoff Let's focus on the speaker. Mr. Wernick: I was just saying that in the language in Section 7.1.3.5, which deals with modifications to special permits and variances approved under a previous code, it talks about the components being modified shall be in compliance with this code, meaning Miami 21. So I think there's a concern amongst property owners that that could be interpreted to mean that if you're changing the entire use of a building, let's say from hotel to office, that the Planning Department could require that the entire building be brought in line with Miami 21. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. And that's what answered previously. If you have a MUSP that is under 11000 and you're seeking a change, you will seek that change under 11000. Today, the same rules apply. You have a minor or you have a major. If you have a minor (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Zoning will review, and then Planning reviews. If it's considered minor, it would be -- you know, it wouldn't require a public hearing. If it's major, it requires a public hearing, the PZAB (Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board) and the City Commission. That's clearly stated as how it's evaluated. What this intent was, on a minor modification, if you do something that affects the -- if you're trying to improve your building, you have it under 11000, but you're bringing it closer to the Miami 21 regulations, it will be considered a minor modification, so you'll be able to do it administratively. That was to actually have an incentive that what we would like to see modifications understanding that you have a right under 11000, that we would want to see the design closer to Miami 21. Mr. Wernick: Okay. Chair Sarnoff That explain it? Mr. Wernick: I understand her answer. I think it's not as clear in the language, that's all. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Commissioner Gort: You know -- Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Commissioner Gort: -- this is what's good about this meeting. Everything said here is on the record. That's important. Chair Sarnoff Right. And you can hear her interpretation -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Chair Sarnoff -- of what was said about a particular section of the code. You're recognized for the record. Javier Betancourt: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. For the record, Javier Betancourt, deputy director, DDA (Downtown Development Authority). The DDA has been engaged in Miami 21 since its inception. And over many months, many meetings, and many discussions, we've adopted four resolutions that express the agency's positions. We've stated our support for Miami 21 for the record, but that support is conditional and could be revoked should the code be amended in a way that's detrimental to downtown. We're particularly concerned with some proposed amendments that would negatively impact some vested development rights and basic property rights in downtown. Specifically, we absolutely oppose any effort to decrease the amount ofMUSP extensions allowed in Miami 21. We've discussed those MUSP extensions a couple of times here today. There is an effort to reduce those from six years to only one -- a one-year time extension. We also oppose an effort to allow the appeal of waivers to the City Commission, and we strongly oppose any amendment that would allow as -of -right building permits to be appealed to the City Commission. Those were all proposals at the previous City Commission that were deferred. We know that Miami 21 isn't perfect. As we get a chance to see the code's affect now that it's been implemented, we ourselves may return with some proposed amendments that would seek to improve the code. But in the meantime, let's not make it worse by amending the code in such a way that politicizes the as -of -right development process and infringes on vested development rights and property rights. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, sir. Xavier Lesmarie: Good morning. My name is Xavier Lesmarie, and I own and operate a building on 5061 Biscayne Boulevard since 1999. I'm here today before you, Commissioner, to oppose the 35 feet limitation along the MiMo Historic District. It has no legal, no aesthetic, no architectural, no economic value. On the contrary, I think it will prevent beautification and viability in our area. We have fight [sic] over the past three to four years and back up the City to approve the recommendation to have a district being designated as historic, and we love the fact that we can preserve those (UNINTELLIGIBLE) motels from the 1950s. Today, 70 percent of the MiMo Historic District is already cap at 20 feet. It make no sense to cap it at 35 feet and prevent any possible viability and increase of density in our area. I came in front of you three time to repeat always the same thing, but it seems that, for some reason, it doesn't go through and I'm not sure to understand the reasoning behind some of the people who want to cap at 35 feet. I said that you need to study on a case -by -case basis any potential development that will come before you. This is why we elect you. Do not shut off a future to have, let's say, a nice structure of 50 feet because it is cap at 35 feet on your book. I say yes for low density, butt say no to this restriction. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, sir. You're recognized for the record. Luis Herrera: My name is Luis Herrera, president of Vizcaya Homeowner Association, member, MNU. In the beginning Ana mentioned by right. We discuss a lot of time in meetings over here for years. By right, we never have a chance to come down in front of you and discuss whatever is against or building in the neighborhood. I think that language better be changed, by right, because anything by right, we no [sic] have no right to come down here so we have to change that. Another thing we have for years, we try to protect the neighborhood. We try to keep it like City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 a residential. They change the corridors in Coral Way. We're asking for T4. You had some people come down here. They want T6, T8, and we still discussing we have to be protect the neighborhood. And I think in Miami 21, if yes the right way, they protect the neighborhood. If we decide come in front of you discuss any change in the future years, we have to allow to become here and discuss. So I think Miami 21, it needs some more discuss and changing what it has to be. Like Anna said before, by right and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) can come, we asking for what you call them, nonconform [sic], the low houses when the hurricane come. With a new code, they not conform. She said they going to be having opportunity to the new code connected with the no right conform, and that's a big change. Still, everything the same way. We need to protect the neighborhood. We need to change the language. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Barbara Gimenez: Good morning, Chairman Sarnoff and Commissioners. Barbara Gimenez, 7001 Biscayne Boulevard. I'm having a little bit of technical difficulty here. Commissioner Gort: Why don't we let the next speaker --? Chair Sarnoff Barbara, why don't we recognize you. Barbara Bisno: Okay. I was -- just somebody left a note here. That's why I was stepping forward. I didn't mean to interrupt. Chair Sarnoff No, no, no. Commissioner Gort: Go right ahead. Chair Sarnoff They're having technical Jiff -- Ms. Bisno: Okay. Chair Sarnoff -- so why don't you speak. Ms. Bisno: May I walk over quickly and give --? I've got a little handout. Chair Sarnoff Sure. Ms. Bisno: My name is Barbara Bisno. I live at 1000 Venetian Way, Apartment 603. I'd like to welcome -- well, Commissioner Dunn stay away but -- walked away -- Commissioner Suarez and Commissioner Gort to the Miami 21 whatever. Thank you for calling this special meeting, Commission. And thank you, Chairman, for allowing residents to speak as they need to. It's a welcome change to the proceedings. I understand that the Administration indicated that the request that made to change the general requirement under the sign ordinance is not recommended because they showed some commercial areas that would be affected. First, we should understand that previously when you got a sign, certain signs, you had to get Class I or Class II approvals. Now under Miami 21 signs are described and if you meet the definition, you get it. If in fact, there are commercial -- existing commercial areas that have illuminated signs that shine in the direct vision of residential properties, well, if you need to grandfather them in, that's your prerogative, of course. But we're thinking now of how much Miami 21 is supposed to improve the quality of life of our citizens and -- so I respectfully request that this change be placed in the code, which will say that not only flashing but illuminated signs that are in the direct vision of a residential property is prohibited. And if you wish to have existing places that are already causing problems continue until they go out of business, that's your prerogative. But for the future under Miami 21, I hope it will be prohibited. I have two small information questions just from listening to the proceedings before I spoke. I want to make sure I City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 understand. The issue of no public hearing if you have a modification of your MUSP and it begins to approach Miami 21 standards, that it -- ifI understand what the director said, it will not -- it will be treated as a minor modification and will not warrant a public hearing. And my question is -- as the Chairman knows, we worked for years on the notice requirements under Miami 21 so near neighbors and neighborhood associations would know what's going on. And my question is for the Administration, even under this scenario with no public hearing, is notice given to the near neighbors and the --? Chair Sarnoff Your question is, on a Miami 21 building and if there's a minor modification -- I guess your question is what is minor, and if it is minor, what notice is given? Ms. Bisno: Right. It's not only buildings, it's MUSPs as well. Chair Sarnoff Well, there's no more MUSPs under Miami 21. Ms. Bisno: Well -- but no. But they -- those that are being brought forward. Chair Sarnoff Then you're saying the ones under 11000 -- Ms. Bisno: Right. Chair Sarnoff -- that receive a minor modification. But that's been the case even as today, Barbara. If there's a minor modification to an 11000 MUSP, it doesn't come before the Commission and there's no notice given. Ms. Bisno: But the change is that even if it would be considered major but it approaches Miami 21 standards, it will be treated as minor. That's -- Chair Sarnoff All right. Is that correct? Commissioner Gort: That's what she said. Ms. Bisno: Maybe I misunderstood. That's my question. Chair Sarnoff Let's get that answer. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The minor modification is -- what we're putting is a caveat that it cannot exceed the development capacity that this -- the board approved. So if the project, for example -- and the one example we use is there might be buildings that may have a blank wall today and they come in and they want to have a liner. Under -- probably under today's code, Zoning may say if you're exceeding the five feet or ten feet, it might be immediately a major modification. On our end, we're saying if you are putting a liner which is clearly going to the intent of what the Miami 21 is, where instead of getting a blank wall, we're getting a liner, it's not exceeding the capacity that this board had approved as part of the, I guess, bag of goods that you gave them as far as the uses and intensity, then we should -- we will be able to approve it as a minor modification. We also have to -- on our criteria, the way we're reviewing it, we would also be looking to Table 12, which is the equivalent to 1305, and it has to meet the fransect. So it's a way of saying we would rather have those 11000 projects that today could go through a major and could go through a hearing but does not really ensure that we would be able to get a better quality project to do it through the minor modification under the Miami 21. Chair Sarnoff Which I think is the question you have, Barbara. Ms. Bisno: Correct. City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Okay. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff Yes. Commissioner Gort: Now my understanding on the Miami 21, we go -- the use is no longer looked into it. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I'm sorry. I didn't hear. The use -- Commissioner Gort: My understanding on the Miami 21, the use of the facility is not part of the question. In other words, before you would determine what was going to be the use of the building when it was going to be built. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well, this -- it's -- usually, it's the intensity. When there's -- you come in with the use -- on the Miami 21, the things that we have seen as changes that may trigger the major modification is usually they're the configuration of the building, the envelope of the building is changing; or say you're putting something else, maybe another use that might have an increase on intensity. Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: If that is the case -- Commissioner Gort: As long as they don't increase intensity, they can change whatever use they had. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: They can change it, and that is how we have been reviewing it today. There's many projects that come that they might have a mix of residential and office, and they might want to have a hotel instead of the office, when -- between the Planning and the Zoning Department review it, we say what is the impact. If there's not an increase in intensity, meaning it's usually what would trigger more trips -- vehicular trips and it doesn't affect, then we will treat it as that and then it goes into the other measurements that Zoning will review and we will review. They will review on the standards of you know, how they have increased the footprint, if they have gone higher, they gone lower. We will increase in -- this body has approved a project that was represented to you this way. When the changes come, is this going to be a different project than the one you approved. So -- but those are the things. But again, what we're frying to encourage is that the code of the 21, which we feel is better, will be able to be reviewed on the minor as long as it didn't increase what this body had approved. And again, I just want to make sure that it's -- especially for the people that have been hearing this, it has -- it's reviewed through Table 12, which is equivalent to 1305, which I know is close to everyone's heart here. Ms. Bisno: All right. So it does seem that if a major change -- modification to an old, pre Miami 21 MUSP which continues, if it begins to approach Miami 21 standards, will be treated as a minor, which will have no notice to the residents. So I would recommend that that be looked at and some alteration made. The other little information thing is just listening to one of the speakers who was asking that commercial properties be treated as residential properties in times of disaster, she defined residential as single family and duplex, and I just want to make sure that somehow the multifamily definition inclusion in the residential properties hasn't fallen to the wayside. Chair Sarnoff Let's get Anna up here. My understanding is that was resolved before we passed it. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: That was resolved. It was -- the multifamily was by right. It was City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 something that it was asked -- Chair Sarnoff Okay. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and that was changed. Chair Sarnoff I just wanted to verify. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Bisno: Just wanted to verify it, yes. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Thank you, Barbara. Ms. Bisno: All right. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized for the record. Ms. Gimenez: Good morning. Barbara Gimenez, 7001 Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here on behalf of the MiMo District as a property owner, not here technically on behalf of anyone, but I'm expressing the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the property owners in this 27-block area on Biscayne Boulevard from 50th Street to 77th Street. A little bit of a difference that I note here with some of the speakers is it seems to be we have builders and developers on one side and then we have residents on the other, and no one seems to meet. In our area, overwhelmingly we are first and foremost residents. We're residents. We're not builders. We're not developers. And we've owned our properties for years and years, 10, 15, 20, even 30 years. And we've sat on our properties and we've gone through a lot of bad times. We have sat with our property and gone through a lot of bad times. We just don't come in front of the Miami City Commission and ask for additional building rights. We're out there battling the police -- we're battling with the police, rather, to help us in many of the problems that are in the neighborhood and with FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) that consider us a major highway and everybody goes -- and while the City ofMiami is downsizing us and wants to make us a village, we're kind of like stuck between a rock and a hard place. We just have a really quick presentation on the screen on the MiMo District. Already boasts quite a number of buildings that are in excess of 35 feet. Those are the ones marked in red, and many of them are historic. We've actually teamed up with a group of architects and urban planners that have assisted us in creating a sfreetscape. This is only a couple of slides and it's a couple of city blocks. The top photo is -- it's a picture of how it exists today. And the bottom is what could exist with proper infill. The blue buildings are proposed, for example, and they're over 35 feet. The existing buildings are also clearly over 35 feet and it's compatible. There's nothing there. There's one block in particular of the white building on your left is where the Coppertone girl sits, and that is well in excess of 35 feet. Here's a close-up. The blue buildings would be, again, proposed. Here's another view of it, how it interacts with the abutting residential neighborhood. And clearly with Miami 21, we could step back the heights where they would be either the same height or not over -towering the residences in the rear and be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and not lead us into economic stagnation. Here's another block. I'm not going to go block by block obviously, but I'd like to just point out to you, the building in the center in the photograph, that's Balans. That is the brand-new development in our area, the only one for many years. While the proponents of the 35 foot height restrictions like to point out to this building as a perfect example of 35 feet, 3 stories, in reality Balans is 48 feet and on top of it, there is a structure of 6 to 8 feet that houses air conditioning or whatever. But the point of the matter is this is well in excess of 35 feet. Here's a close-up and some of the -- what infill -- compatible infill would look like. None of us here are seeking T8 or any other -- we don't want to build towers. We don't want to go 12, 15 feet. We just would like to be able to build our property responsible -- responsibly and not be stagnated. Here's another view again how these infill could be perfectly compatible with the City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 residential neighborhood. We're not seeking to create another Coral Way where, you know, it -- that would be unacceptable to us as residents as well. This is what 35 feet encourages. We already have some of these in our area. We don't want any more with the parking in your face and garbage for all who drive by to view it. Here's a couple of slides that show what infill amongst the historic area can look like. These are five -story, 55 feet, that sit alongside the historic. Here's another example. The building in the rear is new. The ones in the front are historical. This is very interesting. This is a five -story structure, all that greenery, that hides a parking garage, which is five stories. And the front are just a couple of stories and all of them are in excess of 15 feet. They're actually 18 to 25 feet, which is another one of our pet peeves, this 15-10-10 type of restriction that would make it impossible for a commercial development to be properly built. There's just no room for utilities and fixtures. Here's another way of stepping back. This is two stories that align the major thoroughfare, and there's a step back and there's four stories in the rear. This is perfect human type -- this is not an overwhelming feel. It doesn't make you feel like you're in some kind of canyon or anything like that. It's very human. And last slide that shows the same thing with five -- four or five stories, 50 feet in height. I just want -- just in closing, I just want to make a comment. The next slide will show a list of the architects that were consulted by the City ofMiami before imposing the 35-foot height resfriction. The next slide shows the urban planners that were consulted before imposing a 35-foot height restriction on MiMo. And the next one shows the real estate professionals that were consulted before imposing a 35-foot height resfriction on the MiMo. In fact, to continue to impose the 35-foot height resfriction on MiMo District would even put our iconic Coppertone girl in peril. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff You're next. Tony Recio: Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Tony Recio, with law offices at 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, in Coral Gables. I'm here on behalf of Pinnacle Housing Group to speak about just some issues that the affordable housing industry has highlighted in Miami 21 and perhaps ways that we can address them. And when I speak about the affordable housing industry, I'm specifically talking about that segment that applies for funding from outside of South Florida often, the State of Florida, HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development), and brings that money and builds here in the City of Miami. So they're taking money from outside of South Florida and bringing it into the City. What I have understood over the last ten years is that this Commission has traditionally been very supportive of that type of affordable housing, that type of -- opportunities for residents of the City, for the residents of the City that need those types of opportunities, and also for the construction and development that that brings to the City ofMiami, the dollars from outside that it brings in. Now there were a couple of comments at the outset that Hs. Gelabert made regarding some of the issues with the affordable housing development. I'll just touch on one of them, the public benefit program. She characterized that as intended to help affordable housing -- that type of affordable housing by providing these exfra incentives. The only thing I'd like to point your attention to is that public benefits program, the one in 3.14, that's not directed at necessarily affordable housing and development of affordable housing. It has that element in it, but it applies to all T6s, whether from eight stories to sixty stories. I can tell you right now affordable housing, it doesn't make sense dollar -wise to build affordable housing at anything more than maybe 15 stories, so that -- so the great bulk of those public benefits don't really apply to these affordable housing developers. It -- the money -- the problem with the money is that they cannot afford the structural reinforcement to go much higher than that. And since they can't recoup it on rents because their rents are capped as part of the affordable housing program, it doesn't work for them. So you get to the floor lot ratio concept with the public benefits program. That floor lot ratio applies all over the city to every property. It counts parking. Well, there's kind of a give and take here. If you build the full amount of parking that you're required to do, you're counting all of that as part of your floor lot ratio, so it eats into the floor lot ratio, okay. In order to do quality affordable housing, you need other parts of this development other than parking. You need nice -sized units, and I'm not talking about a City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 600-square-foot efficiency. I'm talking about 740-, 840-square-foot one -bedrooms. These are nice apartments. There's no reason that just because they're affordable housing residents that they shouldn't have nice places to live. You're talking about amenities, business centers, gyms, libraries, indoor playground space for kids. Those types of amenities all eat into the floor lot ratio, and that's why the floor lot ratios provided under the public benefits program are simply insufficient. They don't go -- they're not incredibly insufficient. They're just a little too low, and we've got the numbers to back that up, which we'd love to share with you all. We can send you all that information. I'm not going to bore you with those details right now. Now I mentioned the parking reductions. Right now under the way Miami 21 is drafted, there are parking reductions by exception for multifamily affordable housing. That means it goes to this Commission. It is a process, and it is an uncertain process. In order to make that balance with the floor lot ratio work, one thought that we have had that we have discussed as a group is to make that more of an administrative concept, perhaps lowering the percentage available or providing an alternative where there's a lower percentage available, so that's something that I think is something you could address. One other -- well, a couple of other issues -- and I'll be very brief. The MNU amendments regarding the height cap. I just want to make sure if this -- if it is this Commission's will to approve any of those MNU amendments regarding the height cap, that this -- it's got to be very limited because if you cap height at 85 feet on any of these developments, you've basically killed that development. As I said, they can't build more than 15 stories, but they can't really build a whole lot less than 85, 90 feet and still make the numbers work. It's a very tight gain that they're -- a tightrope that they're walking here. The -- so it's something that you need to consider before you go through with that. I'm not saying it can't work. I'm just saying it needs to thoroughly be considered. And the last thing -- and this is something that Lucia Dougherty brought up, which I just want to just touch upon. This concept of successional zoning and waiting periods, I think she brought up a great point. There are some little issues with Miami 21 that can be addressed in time. Maybe they're not all being found right now because the properties haven't been identified. But I think it's important to build into this code, even if it's just for a short period of time, maybe two to three years, where there's some kind of way to waive that successional zoning limitation and be able to fix, correct issues. We've got a -- Pinnacle Housing Group has a property that they're -- they've been dealing with here in Coconut Grove that has exactly that issue. It's got T5 on the front. It's got T3 in the back. What they want to do is do a community rec center across the bottom and do elderly housing above. It's supported by many members of the community, but it's something that would take a year and a half to two years to get done if we have to wait the successional zoning and wait out the waiting periods 'cause we've got to jump from T3 all the way up to T5 to make that thing work, so it's something to consider. That's one option. Another option in that vein is to allow this Commission to -- maybe a Commissioner -sponsored amendment to be able -- to not have the successional zoning and the waiting periods apply and maybe allow a [sic] Commission or an individual Commissioner to be able to waive that. Those are just some thoughts regarding affordable housing. I'd be happy to -- Yes? Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, may I ask him a question? Chair Sarnoff Yes, please. Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Recio, do you have any -- just from an industry kind of general prospective -- I was at a groundbreaking yesterday for an affordable housing project. Do you have any idea what is the amount of money that's going to flow potentially to the City of Miami over the next couple of years from stimulus dollars or any other kind of federal and state money that may flow that would require us to be kind of prepared on an expedited basis? Mr. Recio: I don't have a number. What I can tell you is the percentage that should go to the City ofMiami and South Florida, in general, is much greater than it has been in the past. What has happened over the last ten years is that affordable housing development started popping up all over the state of Florida 'cause everybody was competing for these dollars. What these City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 developers and what the municipalities in these different areas have found is that in the smaller towns, the smaller counties where there's not the population, there's not sufficient population, these things don't work so well and they're losing money. So what you're seeing is these are now going to be out of the game and the big cities are the ones that are going to be competing for this. This is the biggest city that Florida has. We have -- we stand to rake in a substantial chunk of that pie, of the monies available if we can take advantage of that. And the opportunities have to be there to take advantage of those things. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Recio: Sure. Chair Sarnoff I know Ana wants to speak and I know the Mayor wants to speak. So let's do protocol. We'll let the Mayor speak and then Ana. Mr. Recio: Sure. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Just to -- Good morning, Mr. Chairman -- Chair Sarnoff Good morning, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Regalado: -- Commissioners. Just to add on the affordable housing -- and Commissioner Suarez was there yesterday, Commissioner Dunn, Mayor Carlos Alvarez, and Commissioner Edmonson. Actually, it was another company, a company that is doing the Beacon, which is the name that Commissioner Dunn came up, at Northwest 10th Street and 2nd Avenue. And what they said is that they have two more projects, that company, only that company, that could go either way. They could do it somewhere in Miami -Dade County or they could do it in the City ofMiami, but the problem is that 30 percent of the money has to be allocated and spent before December 31 of this year. If they do not have the guarantees, if they do not have the cooperation of the City in terms of permitting, but especially under Miami 21 code, those two projects will move to the County. Yesterday's project was the first ever to be built in the state of Florida with stimulus money. Actually, the County leveraged one for each -- one dollar for twelve dollars of federal funding. And this project, for your information -- and two Commissioner were there -- it's a 90-apartment building, rental. Rents will be $369 a month for people with income 17 to $35, 000. The construction will employ 350 people during the day. And the first floor, they have offered the City ofMiami the entire first floor for a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office, an office of Elevate Miami and Workforce of the City ofMiami, completely free. We only need to pay the utilities. So it's important that we consider the affordable housing because it's the only way to build now in these days. But I just wanted to tell you that there is a second batch of the stimulus money that will be coming to Florida. And the attorney is right, they want to focus on big cities close to mass transit. So it's important that we deal with this issue, but it has to be done sooner than later because some County Commissioners are really trying to get those projects to their district outside of the City of Miami. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may just add one thing? And I think -- Chair Sarnoff You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: --the Mayor articulated it, there has to be -- it has to be 30 percent built by the year's end, and it also has to be shovel ready today. For it to be shovel ready, it has to be permitted, it has to comply with Miami 21, et cetera. I'm preparing legislation that will address the affordable housing issues. I don't have it ready today. It's not something that -- it's something I've been working on very, very diligently since our last meeting, but it's something that's not quite ready yet, but as soon as it is, I'd like to bring it before the Commission for their City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 thoughts. I don't know if the more appropriate thing would be to have it as a discussion item to discuss it and then maybe potentially put it on the agenda so that everyone can flush out their thoughts. But I hope to have it if not the next Commission meeting, the one after so -- Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized. Commissioner Gort: I understand the Miami 21 concept and I think it's very well, but we need -- also need to understand that Miami have different neighborhoods with different needs. I mean, what works in one section of the City ofMiami does not work in other sections of the City of Miami. And it's very important to realize -- in my district, I know there's a great need for the affordable housing. In my district, it is a lot of blue collars [sic] workers that can't pay the high rent as it is right now. It's very difficult for them. This affordable housing will be very helpful. On 17th Avenue, the YMCA (Young Men Christian Association) building in a joint venture with the -- one of those affordable housing developers, and it's a beautiful building. People loved it. CAMACOL (Latin Chamber of Commerce) just finished doing the hundred apartment on Flagler and 13th Avenue. It creates jobs for people. At the same time, it's an economic development for our neighborhoods. Every time you have those buildings occupied by individuals, they're going to use the services of that neighborhood. They're going to shop, they're going to buy, and they're going to do everything in that neighborhood. So Commissioner, I'll be more than glad to support any issues you come up with because I think it's important. And this process is beginning to be very competitive. There's a lot of competition for these funds and we've got to be able to work with these people to make sure we get those developers. Thank you. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized. Commissioner Dunn: Thank you. And I just want to kind of piggyback on what has already been mentioned. I think probably one of the most impressive things for me on yesterday was this particular construction building or building to be constructed would not otherwise be able to be built by any developer where they could at the same time give the affordable rents. And I want to say something just that -- so we'll -- and I thank you for being there, Commissioner Suarez. Thank you, Mayor, and as always, and this Commission. These apartments, and I promise you, they look like million -dollar condos. And I mean, it's not your normal concept of what we picture affordable housing, but yet the rates -- I was told that nothing in that building will go for more than I think around $700 plus a month. No more than about seven hundred and a half a month, nothing in the building, with 15 percent of those apartments being rented at $369. I mean -- and what it's going to do, it will change the blight because so many apartments in that area, so much of the housing in that area, areas like Overtown in District 5, rent these run-down, dilapidated slum houses, and now it's going to force -- it's going to give people in the area an option to really have a quality of life atmosphere and I know everything else will happen. The -- I'm not saying that affordable housing -- we had that discussion before, Mr. Chairman -- will change or cause economic development, but it's certainly going to spur it and it's certainly going to bring up the level for the tax base in that area. So anything -- and I agree as it relates to the 20 -- Miami 21. It has to be sensitive to that. And when we find developers who are prepared to handle the stimulus monies or whatever it may be, certainly we should be in a position to at least assist them with the permitting and whatever that we can so that we don't lose the development to other areas of the county, especially when they want, in fact, to come into the city. So I appreciate this session today because, as we all have concurred, Miami 21 is not a perfect instrument, but certainly with the proper tweaking and input, it can become a valuable tool to help all of the citizenry of the City ofMiami. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right. You want to respond, Ana? City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, ifI may. I just wanted to touch on some of the points that deals with affordable housing. But first I'll start offMiami 21 is not against affordable housing. We have -- on Tony Recio's comment as far as the public benefit trust fund, what I just wanted to clarify, the way that it works is there's three -- if you build the affordable housing within your structure, you get two times as much square footage and you can build it. If you cannot build it, you don't -- you can build it outside, but you can also pay toward the fund. The clarification on the public trust fund, on these monies that would be available is for this board to be able to have it, that is for housing and open space. It's at the discretion of the Commission. Where we say that it would be a benefit is, as today, as you know, there is a bonus that is the -- called the planned unit development, which is free. It's a 20 percent exfra FAR that it comes in the asking. Sometimes we, through design review, might go and ask for this or a plaza or an open space. The open space master plan has clearly helped us out because it had given us (UNINTELLIGIBLE) attention that we need, so it's not a reactive mode. But right now people get maybe 50, 55 percent of FAR, where the only funds that might be coming for you, the Commissioners, to be able to put back into the community is only 25. With Miami 21, the public benefit is whatever you need, it's whatever you contribute. I just wanted to clarify. But you can build it. And if you build it, you don't have to pay. So that's a way of --from the private market to be able to say I want to put affordable housing in my market -rate project. The same condition -- if it is affordable housing project and it's in a T6-8 and wants to do 12 -- a T6-12 that wants to go higher to 20 stories, you can do it because what you're putting is the affordable housing project so you can increase it. It's not -- you don't have to pay for it because you're building the affordable housing. Chair Sarnoff Is what you just said that you're encouraging mixed -use buildings? In other words, you're encouraging affordable components with market -rate components? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Precisely. Chair Sarnoff Is that not the national model? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, it is. Chair Sarnoff And only Miami does it differently? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well, Miami -- that's -- the concern we have is that many -- when you dwell on the C-2s that might be changing, that when we looked at it, it has really (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- half of it -- a percentage have gone to DI s, which I know we haven't touched, and the other half is really going to T6-8. So you're -- what you're providing is a mixed use. The other thing that I would say is as far as the permitting, just because -- by making it by right, you are getting over the hurdle of a public hearing. Many times we see projects that come and say, you know, we have an issue with the financing. We need to get onto the agenda because it's -- as you all expressed, the cycle is coming close, and we all understand. What we're doing is saying it is by right; you don't have to have a public hearing, so you'll be able to do it. And I just also wanted to put that on the record. As far as parking, it's by exception. You know, there was a consideration at one time -- some months ago when we were going through it to have it just as a waiver, as has been suggested. We didn't have an issue with that. The concern was that many times what you have is some people do want to be able to hear if someone is going to have parking overflow in their neighborhood. So does the Planning Department have an objection? Not at all. What we heard that time -- and that's when you went back to an exception -- it was because when it's elderly, people seem to understand that there's not an issue because they won't drive. But when it's affordable, that might not be the case, even though in many cases this department has recommended approval. It's not that we have not. But again, it's an opportunity for the residents to be able to opine. Successional zoning, that is clearly something that was done as a part of this code and it's a predictable. Some of the concerns you hear from the other City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 side is you have an R-1 and now it's going to C-1, what's happening? A lot of what this -- the -- this code is really what is predictable, so that's why you have a successional zone. I know there was -- I don't know if Lucia is still here. On one particular project, we are moving forward on that because that -- this change on zoning came as a result of the two hearings, so this one you will see coming before you. But it was a GI. It was a church. I mean, it was that. It was not that it was a C-1 and there was a mistake. It was what it was and we respected the use. But that one is something independent. But again, it's not this property versus another one. It's really -- successional zoning is a predictability for everyone to know that if you have a T4, you can only go up to five. So it's that anxiety that as -- all of you have seen. The -- one more. As far as the City being friendly to affordable housing, we have. And that's even -- not only -- not in the zoning code, in the comprehensive plan. If you have a complete application on affordable housing and one of those projects that have been said on C-2s that have 150 units per acre and now I'm a T5 or a DJ, the comprehensive plan says that you will be -- you have until the year 2012 to build under that that was granted to you. Again, because we understand there is a financial cycle. All we said was if you have a complete application, you're in, and that's in the comprehensive plan. And guess the last one is the -- there is -- someone suggested that you -- the Commission could waive the 18-month wait. There is -- on Article 7, there is language that says that the Commission can waive the 18 months with a three vote. So you do have that. You do have that and I can read it to you. So you have that possibility that if you see that there has -- there's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of City interest and there needs to be a waiver of the 18 months with the three votes, you do have it. And again, the City can come and make amendments. We are not bound by the twice a year, so those changes can come. And when we were presenting Miami 21 at the beginning of all these process, clearly we even said we would need to come back maybe in a year, again, with the community and the neighbors and see the areas that might be changing, areas that today we may be saying there is T6-24, but if the mark -- things have changed. It should be T6-36. The City will be the one bringing that change, of course, after the community, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So it's not that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) now it's T6-24 and forever we'll have to wait. No. The plan is evolving. And I just also wanted to make sure that it's understood. But anyway, there is the 18 month, 3 votes. The City has that provision already in the code. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized. No, no, no, no, no, no. You're recognized. Henry Patel: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Henry Patel, the owner of King Motel on 7150 Biscayne, as well as the Midtown Inn on 3400 Biscayne Boulevard. I find it really painful to be here after numerous meetings missing our kid's -- my kid's school finishes today and he was supposed to be waiting for me to get an award at the school, but you see the priority. I let my kid go to school and I'm here. I've been here many times, and I'm in strong opposition of 35 feet cap on the Biscayne Boulevard. I had an opportunity to meet Mayor Regalado at the meeting recently in Upper Eastside, and I told him one thing. When you run for office, you run on especially people who support you, but when you become the leader, you represent everybody, whether you agree or disagree, and that's my same pain I share today. Let me get to the point. It was very unfair and unjust punishment to the Biscayne Boulevard hotel owners and business owners, first of all, to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the historic district in just one and a half month's time. On the record, one and a half month we were tagged under the historic district when a lot of people did not even have fixed their roofs from the last hurricane, Wilma. We didn't like to go through the painful process of historic district because of that roof repairs and all that stuff. We took it. Now comes the 35 feet. With all due respect, Chairman Sarnoff, I understand that your campaign promise was 35 feet, but at that time the existing allowable height in our neighborhood was 90 to 110 feet. So if the neighbor -- especially -- I'm just going to name the person who has always been against us -- Elvis Cruz -- who has been fighting against us, saying us greedy investors. Well, when he bought his property, there was 90 to 110 feet allowable height on Biscayne Boulevard, so he must have done his homework when he bought his house. Based on 35 feet, look at the City Hall. I think the ceiling is about -- I'll say about 25 feet, so that'll take one more story over this. Would you like to be in a ten feet height sitting in this City City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Hall? That's what you're telling us to do on a business corridor. In the last meeting in Upper Eastside there was a lot of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cry about some of the neighborhood people -- and Commissioner Sarnoff was there -- that there is noise around the properties. Well, you will have more noise and you will have to fight with these nightclub and restaurants to either get out or fix the problem. The solution to this problem is if you give them some height, that noise will come inside the building. They'll have some parking. Right now a small restaurant who like to cater to decent people with music, there is no room to have music inside. The music is outside. And I know there are a lot of people complaining the same thing. So if you give them some height, that noise can come inside and the neighbors will love to have those businesses. I'll give you a prime example right next to me. All ofyou know Attorney Thomas Tew with Tew and Cardenas. He brought a property called Biscayne Boxing, which is right next to my motel. I'm giving him parking free of charge. You see my parking lot full in the morning and full in the evening thinking I'm very busy. No, I'm not. But ifI don't cooperate with him, I'll lose the beautiful business because he needs parking and he don't have ample parking. And my parking lot is full and he can -- he'll tell you that I'm supporting him to make sure that his business survives and don't go away. Now if those cars go in the neighborhood, the neighborhood's going to start complaining about a lot of cars in the neighborhood. Let me share my personal feeling. Some ofyou have been on the Commission before, like Commissioner Gort. Some of your family member have been on Commissioner before -- Commission before, like Mayor Suarez and Mayor Carollo. We had a beautiful city. We still love this city. Miami is Miami because people love to come to Miami. But we have -- we are building a Marlins stadium, we have an American Airlines Arena, and we have a beautiful Port ofMiami, who caters to tourists. But we don't have a world -class convention center and a hotel to cater to that kind of people. We lose all revenue to Miami Beach. I sit on a board of the largest hotel owners association and I'm going to be a chairman next of the 10,000 hoteliers, and I have never ever found a property in Miami where I can bring (UNINTELLIGIBLE) convention, which is going to be in Las Vegas next year. Why? Because we don't have -- City ofMiami has that facility. Getting straight to my pain, we have offered a compromise of 55 feet many occasion. We have not been heard. If there are a lot of homeowners who are mad about the height, this should have been full with them saying don't do this. There are a lot of homeowners who work, who don't have time -- and actually, there are not a lot of businesses who can be here for four or five hours because I understand that we have to be here when the agenda comes up, and we have to be here, but a lot of us work and run the hotels, do the laundry, so we can't be here five hours. Butl can have 40 business owners who say we don't like 35 feet. But homeowners -- I have talked to people in Morningside. They said they are willing to come into a compromising ground. But if you don't come to a compromising ground, unfortunately there will be a pathetic end to this situation. It will end up in a court. And many people who have notion that Bert J. Harris doesn't pay the claim, well, Miami Beach settled a lot of lawsuits outside the court, so there will be no claim on the record to say under Bert J. Harris. There were claims made outside the court. MNU has presented many things, some of them have been totally absurd and wrong. There have been no research, like my friend Barbara Gimenez said. We have 25 years of our blood, our sweat, our hard work, as much as so that my kid -- my daughter who's just got out of University ofMiami, she finished her first year, I told her to come and speak. She was born at that motel. She just came from the college, and I told my daughter, you should have been an attorney rather than a doctor; at least you could defend me. And seriously, my kids have gone and picked up the used syringe and needles and garbage from Biscayne Boulevard with Miami Police Department. I would like to see where Elvis Cruz was there when I was doing that. I have paid my dues to my society. I own the property, but I'm thinking today --I have a $12 million project approved and sitting on the table on 34th and Biscayne to build 127-room Hampton Inn & Suite [sic]. I'm thinking should I put my money in the City. Should I? Because many ofyou -- it's a very sensitive issue. Many ofyou are Cuban Americans who left ftom Cuba because we were not heard. I feel the same way. I'm a minority. Dr. Martin Luther King said a politician will see what is politically correct. An insecure man will see whether it's secure or not, but a leader will see is it righteous or not. We have 37 blocks, maybe 65 votes for next election, if that's what the count comes down to, but that's unfair. That is totally unfair to us who have worked our rear end off on Biscayne City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Boulevard. And we have been called greedy investors by some of the neighbors. Let me ask you, any one of you will sell your house to me which you bought it from 25 years ago at the same price? If not, then you're a greedy investor, too. It is sad. I wish I could have tears in my eyes to say I paid my dues to the City ofMiami as a foreigner who came and assimilated, and I call Miami my home and my kids call America their motherland. But I'm willing to move on if this is the situation I'm going to always face, that we have never been heard. I'm willing to compromise. My friends are willing to compromise on a 55 feet. There are high-rises in -- up Edgewater next to R-1. Why didn't you fight them? Yeah, because those were the fight of David versus Goliath. They were rich investors. There were rich developers who are there against you. We are run over because our voice is not heard. And I request to you, 55 feet is livable compromise by many, many homeowners in that area. Only two or three have been here fighting for 35 feet. I have spoke [sic] to many homeowners. They know me personally very well from 25 years of my existence on Biscayne Boulevard and -- Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. Mr. H. Patel: I'm sorry, sir? Chair Sarnoff In conclusion. Mr. H. Patel: In conclusion, to you, all of you Commissioners, including Commissioner Sarnoff -- Chairman Sarnoff, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) reconsider your position. The compromise we have offered is just 20 feet difference. It's not worth to go to a court and take this City into another financial burden. Fifty-five feet, if you can't come to a compromise, at least one thing I would like you to do is come and meet with all the business owners and hear their side. We have never been heard. So I wish that do what is righteous. In ending, I would like to give you a quote from my leader, Mahatma Gandhi. When India and Pakistan had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) every leader in India asked that every -- everybody in India should go to Pakistan who was Muslim and every Hindu stay in India. Only one person stood up against it. It was Gandhi. He said how can I tell them to leave India when this is their motherland also? But (UNINTELLIGIBLE) will judge us as leaders, how we treated the minorities, and that's exactly my statement I'm making to you. Thank you. God bless you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Next. Shah Utkarsh: Hi. My name is Shah Utkarsh, and I live on 6200 and Biscayne, and I strongly oppose 35 feet height. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. Brian Patel: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. I see new Commissioners now. This thing has been going on for -- I think was very young back then. I don't remember how many years this thing has been going on, 35 feet. I started living on Biscayne Boulevard when it was 110 feet (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Pamela L. Latimore (Assistant City Clerk): Can you state your name for the record, please. Mr. B. Patel: I am sorry. My name is Brian Patel, and I live at 6150 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I -- it was 110 feet or so when I started living on Biscayne Boulevard and bought a small motel and started raising a family as well. Twenty-five years, seen nothing but bad, bad, bad, bad. Biscayne Boulevard is a major stretch, major corridor that puts you right into the heart ofMiami. And it's a commercial corridor. No doubt there's a residential neighborhood behind the Biscayne Boulevard, but -- adding a few more buildings on the Biscayne Boulevard will enhance the neighborhood as well. I'd like to see all the neighborhood people coming and walking out on the Biscayne and eating and enjoying their life. Biscayne City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Boulevard is only ten minutes from Miami International Airport, ten minutes from South Beach, ten minutes from downtown Miami, ten minutes from American Airline [sic] Arena, ten minutes from Performing Arts Center, five minutes from I-95. It's a very, very attractive street we have. We can (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the South Beach even and bring the people on Biscayne Boulevard and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) neighborhood that has been abandoned for all these years, 25 years. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Miguel Mauriz: Good afternoon. My name is Miguel Mauriz. Chair Sarnoff Look, if you're not standing up behind the podium right now, I'm going to close the public hearing. If you intend on speaking, you better get up to the podium. All right, you're recognized for the record, Mr. Lewis. Dean Lewis: Thank you. Dean Lewis, architect and resident at 5910 North Bayshore Drive. Good afternoon. I wanted to just reiterate three points. I'm also a member of the Urban Development Review Board, as well a member of the American Institute ofArchitects, and I am the MiMo design chair architect, and sit on the Affordable Housing and Commercial Loan Committee. I wanted to first off commend the efforts that Miami 21's team has and continues to make in making affordable housing and access to easier entitlements for development. It is critical that our clients and developers for the City who have access to funds who are qualified to build can get the breaks, whether it be some setback waivers, whether it be a little additional buildable area and laxation in parking to build these projects critically needed. Number two, I would also like to request that, again, the Miami 21 team review -- and this is an issue that's been coming on and on and still remains, the unpredictable financial impact ofMiami 21, in particular, two points. Number one, today we designed a new code that out of fear of our waterfront properties having excessive buildable area entitlements due to the gross area, due to the calculation of FAR, we've reduced down to a new formula which is called FLR (Floor Lot Ratio), but there's a major problem in the fundamentals of that calculation and it is the following. IfI have a corner property on an intersection, take Biscayne Boulevard and 29th Street or any other cross -street. Say that property is 50,000 square feet. I move over towards the east, I take a similar infill lot with the same square footage, net lot, and then I move to the waterfront and I take that same -- a similar, exact same lot size and I address Miami 21 to build a project. Miami 21 says you are entitled to -- and unfortunately, the same FLR on each one of those three properties, no more and no less. Well, the financial burden is the following. My waterfront property is five, ten times more in value and I pay that differentiation in taxes. The infill property is less and the corner property is somewhere in the middle. What we don't have yet is a harmonized compatibility where my corner property should build a little bit more than the infill lot -- and this can be done in the form of a waiver or a 10 percent, 15 percent increase in the FLR entitlements of buildable area. And the waterfront property should still be allowed to build more than the precedent two examples. This is not the case, and it'll be a problem for us. It'll (UNINTELLIGIBLE) consistent challenge as well as monopolize the viability of our architectural character. The third and final point that I want to make -- and I hope -- and I invite staff to correct me if I'm wrong in what I just said. I would love to see this revised and addressed. It's a major, major issue. Corner property infill lot and waterfront property cannot have the same building entitlements. Because if -- we're talking -- when we talk about building entitlements, we're talking about compatibility with our neighbors, our frontages. Those are three separate independent and different conditions and deserve specific address. Eleven thousand addressed it in a way that gave too much to the waterfront property, but it still addressed it and allowed for variations, and somewhere in the middle we got to come together. And then the final third point is we have (UNINTELLIGIBLE) parts called Miami 21, we're rezoning the city, but we still have severe adjacencies that have not been addressed and quantified in terms of lower development entitlement zones abutting larger and higher development entitlement zones, whether it be from C-2 to SD-6 in today's current zoning or City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 whether it be to T6 up to -- excuse me -- T6-8 up to T6-60 or T6-36. The unpredictability and the danger currently existing in Miami 21 is ifI pay for it, I can build twice as much in height. A T6-8 is in fact a 12-story structure ifI pay for the difference. T6-24, I could build up to 48 stories as long as I pay for it. Yes, we want to have a financial motivation and a means to bring money back to our city, but at the same time these owners are paying taxes, they always have, if they have the right to build, but they need to have predictability in the code to allow and not just come in with deep pockets and pay for a difference that's going to create again the severe adjacency issues that we've been facing in 11000. So I don't see that resolved as of yet, and I'd rather not see Miami 21 to have evolved into a code for sale but a real zoning code that addresses -- and you got to roll up your sleeves and you got to look at all the severe adjacencies. DI is a wonderful zone, a live/work loft component. Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. Mr. Lewis: In conclusion, it's not ready for primetime and, hopefully, when we take the kit aparts [sic] and put it together, it will be. And again, I strongly oppose 35-foot height limit on Biscayne Boulevard. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Lewis: Thank you. Mr. Mauriz: Good afternoon, again. My name is Miguel Mauriz. I'm with Keystone Holdings. I'm not going to get into the intricacies of how Miami 21 affects or infects my properties. Height, FLR, FAR, affordability, affordable housing setbacks, MUSPs, not going to get into any of that. Where I think the big problem lies in Miami 21 is how Miami 21 removes the politicians out of the picture. It ties your hands in many ways. It doesn't permit you to protect your constituents. You know, every constituency has different needs. The gentleman said it earlier. My property on Coral Way might be very different to the needs on the property on LeJeune. I know we're all probably hungry. If you guys are going to take something from this, all I wish is that you all come up with a vehicle that keeps you guys, the Commission, the Commissioners that we elect, that we bring over here to protect us and protect our necessities, which all vary -- and don't let Miami 21 control you. You guys have to confrol it so that when there is a real problem that we, as a developer, can sit in front of you and explain to you what the -- what our necessities are, that you have the capacity to go and present it in an expeditious fashion so that we don't lose that Fortune 500 company that might want to come into our city and that we can move expeditiously to correct things that might not be to our benefit. Let's not say whether they're right or they're wrong. Times change. Needs change. And you all, the Commission, need to be able to react to those changes in an expeditious fashion because to be honest with you, I don't know what I'm going to build right now because times dictate don't build anything. Things are -- things right now are not working, but when the tides begin to change or ifI am that one fortunate developer who happens to land that Fortune 500 company that doesn't want to go in Coral Gables but wants to be across the street ftom Coral Gables and now they want 100,000 feet, I can't give it to them. But ifI can come to you and explain this to you and you agree with me and that company is going to generate 300 jobs for your constituents, we can't move on it, we're dead. We need your help. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Mauriz: We need your help. Don't let Miami 21 control you guys. Let it confrol us, but don't let it control you guys -- Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Mauriz: -- 'cause then we're really dead. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Yes, ma'am. Kricket Snow: Hi. Good morning -- good afternoon. My name is Kricket Snow. I'm president ofAIA (American Institute ofArchitects) Miami this year. I'll make a brief statement on behalf of AIA Miami, and then I'd also like to speak personally as a resident and an architect. Again -- Chair Sarnoff Do you have questions or are you just making generalized statements? Ms. Snow: No. I'd like to respond to some of the things that I've heard today and some of the things that I've been seeing on e-mail (electronic), some of the issues that I think are worth addressing still in Miami 21. So on behalf ofAIA -- our offices are at 275 University Drive, in Coral Gables. Today you all have heard many concerns -- not just today, but over the last couple of years, regarding some of the issues in Miami 21, and I'd just like to say on behalf of AIA Miami that we would very much like to see sort of a consolidated and collaborative two-way discussion on this issue to see how we can actually resolve some of these issues rather than, you know, continuing the series of sort of one-way communication in terms of question and answer. I believe if there could be some sort of you know -- almost an eight -hour event, a task force, an educational session where all of the stakeholders can actually come together and discuss these issues in depth and have a legitimate discussion, an in depth discussion, I think that we can actually work through a lot of issues and get Miami 21 to a place where people are satisfied. And then secondly, I'd like to speak just as a resident and an architect. So, again, for the record, my name's Kricket Snow. I reside at 35 Southwest 24th Road. I live in a single-family home in Commissioner Sarnoffs district. I'm in the Roads, on the east side of the Roads. So what I'd like to speak on behalf of the -- in terms of the residential properties, I'd like to look at it sort of from two angles. One is how the code specifically affects residential properties, and secondly, how some of the things that -- some of the restrictions on commercial properties may affect the residential landowners. And I'll be brief on that subject because I think Dean actually tackled some of those issues. But really, it's an issue about predictability. And I think that the residents that are living in areas that are next to commercial developments are really expecting that this code will give them something predictable so that they can understand what will be built next to them. And I think there are a couple of major issues to understand, one of which Dean mentioned, which is this issue of height. Quite frankly, if you can pay and build double the height, there's nothing predictable about that. If you're a resident and you think that something next to you is going to be 24 stories, yet the developer could choose to pay and build 48 stories, there's nothing predictable there. Other than that, we think developers probably won't pay more than they have to pay. But nonetheless, that's not very predictable in terms of understanding how large the building next to your neighborhood will be. Secondly, I think that there's -- Chair Sarnoff Kricket, could you define one part of the code --? I hear people making statements and I guess, you know, they're interesting statements to make. Can you tell me one part of the code where an R-1 and now T3 house could be next to a T-24 [sicJ? Ms. Snow: When I say next to -- let me clarify that. That's a good question. I don't necessarily mean the lot adjacent, but in my situation, for example, I live on the east side of the Roads, east of South Miami Avenue, and we live, you know, a block away from Brickell, and the north end of my neighborhood actually is one block from 3rdAvenue, which turns into Coral Way -- which is Coral Way. So all of those are -- and all of those single-family homes are in very close proximity to high-rise, not just, you know, 12-story, midrise, but high-rise. Now I actually personally feel that that's absolutely fine because we bought in that area and we know exactly what that's about. But the point is is that for anyone who does live in an area like that, in Shenandoah, for example, in the Coral Way -- some of the other areas along Biscayne Boulevard, Morningside, all of these areas that are in residential neighborhoods next to areas that allow larger growth, I think that the residents should just really understand what the code actually does, what it says it does, and what it will actually do. So again, back to the issue of predictability, I think it's not quite as predictable as everyone may think it is. Secondly, there's this issue of market demand. And I'll City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 be very brief on this. But again, it's an issue of what the code intends and then what really reality will dictate. And I'll use parking as a prime example. If you're building -- if a landowner is building a midrise or a high-rise, whatever size building it is, he has a certain responsibility to build parking for that business or for that office or for that mixed -use building. And he knows that he can't sell units or lease units if he doesn't have adequate parking. So if, for example, a building is located in an area that's near a Metrorail station and is only required to have one parking spot per unit, then someone who is reading the code could interpret that to mean you will have a much smaller parking podium, when in reality the person building that building is going to build the number of parking spaces he needs to sell his units or lease his retail space. Again, this is an unpredictable issue. The parking could sometimes be twice as large as the code might lead someone to believe because someone can obviously build more than what the code allows in order to build a viable property. So again, I think that's just an issue of unpredictability that people should be aware of. Finally, the issue of FLR versus FAR, Dean mentioned also. It's, again, something else that I think dis-incentivizes a better quality of livable space. Because if you can imagine, you have an envelope -- and this is -- goes for low-income housing, this goes for mixed -use, this goes for any kind of property. Ifyou have an FLR that essentially defines the envelope volume of your building and includes balconies, and parking, and amenities, and support spaces in that envelope, think of yourself as someone who's spending money on that property. What this code does, the way it's set up, is it incentivizes the landowner or the developer to build as much leasable space as he can so that he can get that money back and dis-incentivizes him to build the adequate support spaces, shared spaces, amenities, large outdoor balconies that we like as tenants. So I think it just sort of pushes the developer in a direction where his hands are kind of tied. He can't easily provide -- or at least for free -- he can't provide the nicer shared spaces and amenities and parking and all the other things without being constrained by this FLR idea. So I would -- Chair Sarnoff Wait. Ms. Snow: -- suggest that that -- Chair Sarnoff Stop there 'cause I want to hear that. Ms. Snow: Yes. Chair Sarnoff Ana, this has always been an issue with me with the FLR determination. Ifyou do include the balconies, the elevator shafts, the parking, how does a developer build a beautiful lobby? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Just to clarify, the balconies are not included on the FLR. That's one thing that was not accurate. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: When the FLRs were calculated -- and goes back to something that Kricket said about the market and the other size of properties that Dean, I think, alluded to. When the FLR -- we kind of backed into a number. We took in consideration if you had a property, how much parking market -wise you would need, how much of the elevators and how much of all these other services would be needed. And even we went to the extreme of saying people have already anticipated that they can actually go to the middle of the street in some cases, that you will be able to have that gross, similar as it was -- so all that -- all those things were put into a number and we -- that's how we arrived to backing out into what would be the equivalent of an FLR. So when someone has been given an FLR, those things had been taken in consideration. It wasn't that you were given a flat number without thinking the other thing. So parking was included, the idea that it was going to be market, even though, obviously, on Miami 21, we would -- what we are encouraging is transit and we've had those discussions, but parking City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 was included. Actually, when it was increased, the FLR also changed. As far as the -- and it has been said in many meetings where if you have a middle of -- a property that is inside versus the one that is waterfront, we've always said some will lose, some will gain. It was an average, but it was clearly something that it became an out of context as we know -- Chair Sarnoff So -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- what created so -- but to go back to your question -- Chair Sarnoff -- would you say then that Miami 21 and 11000 afford the developer the same opportunity, let's use that word in a very broad sense, to build public space? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It would be. And actually, if you do the open space -- and now what we also have in the code -- Chair Sarnoff That's what thought. There was another provision of the code that incentivized. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Incentivize it. And this one, you -- like I believe you saw in a few hearings back when -- it wasn't presented to you, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). They're giving this plaza, and instead of giving a plaza, what they're doing is it has to have a size according to the code because we don't want just remnants of open space, that someone didn't know what to do with them, but actually become a civic space. That can be actually put into your building as a civic space as long as it's open to the public. So what we're trying to create it is that public realm and allowing it. And I just want to make sure because there might be other people that might be watching this on TV (Television), and to correct Kricket, what you said, ifyou're a single-family home or a duplex, you cannot -- abutting a T6-8, you cannot go for a bonus. So the predictability for a single-family home is they know those properties cannot get a bonus. And that's clearly stated -- and it was as a protection to the neighborhoods that you couldn't do - - and where the predictability is also in the envelope. There are regulations within the envelope that says that there has to be some setbacks. That's where we feel that it is predictable. Chair Sarnoff Thank you.Ms. Snow: IfI could quickly readdress the balcony issue. Just to be clear, the FLR does also put a limitation on floor plate. It also talks about recessed balconies versus cantilever balconies. So, in fact, there is still an issue. There is still an issue there that needs to be resolved. And on the issue of FLR versus FAR, I'm not actually here advocating that it should be one way or another. I just believe that there are still a lot of issues that need to be addressed. And quite frankly, when you put everything in, parking, amenities, balconies, all of the shared spaces, when you lump it all into one big envelope, it is much harder to determine what the outcome will be. And quite frankly, I think the easy solution to that is go back to the idea of FAR and then simply attack the real issue, which is gross versus net lot. I mean, I think that we can either, you know, change the requirements regarding the definition of FAR to net lot or we can change the definition of gross lot, and l think that would probably make most people happy, rather than changing the entire definition and calculation for how you can build a building. But think that's something that would come out in a more in-depth discussion when we have more time. Finally, I'd just like to quickly go over some of the specific residential issues in terms ofR-1. What would -- Chair Sarnoff I'm going to give you one minute to conclude. Ms. Snow: Okay. In terms of residential, I think that there are some restrictions that need to probably be lifted in this code to make it a little more successful. Number one, all of our single-family neighborhoods are very, very different. Yet, this code establishes all single-family neighborhoods as following one single set of regulations. I don't think that the homes in Little Haiti, Little Havana, the Roads, Coconut Grove, Shenandoah, all of the various neighbors, I don't believe that they should all have the same form/orientation and same restrictions. I believe City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 there should be some variety there. Secondly, in terms of sustainability, the code does promote sustainability by mandating certain LEED requirements, et cetera. However, what I think is contradictory is that sort of the tenet -- the first tenet of sustainability is to be able to orient your building and shade your building appropriately by using passive strategies. This code requires that you orient your home in a certain way. It restricts your overhangs to three feet. If you just think back to the Ken Treister homes or the Alfred Browning Parker homes that are so beautiful in our neighborhoods, they have deep overhangs. They have passive shading devices. They have things that allow them to be real Miami subtropical homes, and this code won't allow that just by virtue of some of those restrictions. Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. Ms. Snow: Finally, my last point is that the second floor in Miami 21 is restricted to be smaller than the first floor, which sort of eliminates, again, all of those sort of early modern typologies of homes where you can have the long, thin second story maybe that covers your carport or covers your garage and allows the second -- the first floor to either just be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or a small entrance. That's gone. So all of the houses in Miami 21, no matter what color they're painted, will essentially have that form you see in the diagram of the code. So finally, just in summary, I would ask this board to please consider that we do take the time to adequately address these issues as professionals and as stakeholders and really attack the big issues and let's get this code right. I mean, it's passed, it's here. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Ms. Snow: Let's get it right. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Ms. Snow: So I would suggest that we -- Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Ms. Snow: -- look at that further. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Ana, I don't know if anything needs to be responded to, to be quite frank with you. You're recognized. Daniel Bajaroff Thank you for having me. My name's Daniel Bajaroff. I'm the broker of DK International Realty, where we broker real estate as well as contest property taxes. I live in Miami Beach. I own a property located at 7610 Biscayne Boulevard, which is currently a house of worship. When we purchased the property about seven years ago, we could build 90 to 120 feet height restrictions. In that time period, what I saw is in the height of the real estate market, the historic disfrict was implemented, so we had like a moratorium. Property taxes for our property -- because we are a for profit corporation that owns the building, so we do pay property taxes -- increased by about 250, maybe even 300 percent while we had restrictions on historic designation being presented, moratoriums, and Miami 21. As I went to the VAB (Valuation Appeals Board) office and -- to contest the taxes, they kept saying that I would still be assessed for highest and best use. And one of the quotes was well, if a storm came and completely knocked down your building, then you can build on it, which I don't think is appropriate or correct. So what we do see is a hardship implemented. On Miami 21, if you look at our disfrict between 56th Street to 79th Street, there is one development was developed around 2005, which is around the 69th block of Biscayne, which is where you have the Starbucks Coffee. They decided to develop a one-story sfructure. That is the only sfructure that we ever had there, and it's kind -- I view it kind of like if you look at animals. I mean, not every animal's endangered. Every animal could become endangered. So you don't set every animal in the City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 endangered species list, and I feel that's what happened with our neighborhood as I traveled on it for seven years and didn't see a single development, other than a one-story retail structure of four or five units. And now you have the Balans, which is the second structure ever to be built. I didn't see where there was the threat of development. I think the area has developed a synergy. If you go there, between the residential and the commercial, you'll see there is a synergy. And I think in whole, people -- and especially the people in our district, you know -- our means are good. We want the best for the community, and at the same time, best for our businesses because they do help -- obviously help support us. So I would like to say that I think that 35 feet is highly restrictive. I think Miami 21 is a huge cookie cutter overall ofMiami Beach. I think we can be more creative than that. Obviously, there needs to be some restrictions, but I think overall in the hearts of us, we're all good and we mean the best for our communities and want to be creative and implement the best that we could. Also, on the 35-foot structure, if you wanted to build a parking garage on the ground floor, that obviously doesn't let you develop much. For retail development, you'd want 12-, 15-foot ceilings for your retail structures. That just leaves you with 20 feet. My current building is probably over 35 feet, I'm guessing 45 feet, as there is a chimney that leads up to about 40, 45 feet. So definitely the 35 feet would allow you to have parking on the ground floor and two stories with very low ceilings above you. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Roger Miller: Thank you. My name is Roger Miller. I'm with Newport Partners. We own the property located at 3275 Coral Way, which is currently a Winn Dixie grocery store. I thank you for the opportunity to hear some of the concerns now that Miami 21 is in effect. I've met personally with some of you and again, I thank you. I want to take this time to just give a little bit of specifics as to some of the concerns as opposed to general objections. One of the things which is unique is we have a larger property in the City, not so large but it's three and a half acres. And a copy of it is -- here's, unfortunately, an older site plan, but roughly, it's a three -and -a -half -acre site. Under the Miami 21 -- in effect, we have over 450 feet of frontage located on Coral Way. Under Miami 21, it is our understanding that there's very limited access, in fact, no access off the major thoroughfare. So that means that all of the traffic on any -- on -- if we were to redevelop this site would have to come in off this tiny, little street on 33rd Avenue, which is directly across from the Miracle Center. This is not a through -street through the neighborhood. The fact that we have 450 feet of frontage here and currently two access points to Coral Way, if we were to potentially redevelop with a new project, we're not a hundred percent sure and we don't think that we would be given those by right, so we do think that those are major concerns. I think when Miami 21 was implemented, it was really intended for these small 150-foot sites, say, on Biscayne, where it makes sense to come in off a side entrance. This is a huge piece with 450 feet. There definitely should be access points to the property because any user who's going to be there, whether it's retail, commercial, office, is going to need access. A second kind of -- I can't say a pet peeve directly, but one of the things which is put in there is the pedestrian walkway. And again, because we've talked -- and Miami 21 requires this of everything. The property would require on a redevelopment -- and here's a slight -- I can't say that this is a great idea, but on a redevelopment concept, the -- one of the things is is that a pedesfrian walkway is required right through the middle of the property, which would lead basically to nowhere. So the real question is, why in every circumstance is a pedesfrian walkway required? And it just -- I can understand the need in certain circumstances, but I just don't understand the need in every circumstance. I think the theory's better than the practice in this instance. I guess another one also which really affects larger sites is the maximum lot area being 40, 000 feet, and then I think with special exceptions, it's 55,000. This is a three -and -a -half -acre site that right now has a footprint of 55, 000 and surface parking. I think it really restricts the potential redevelopment and -- of the property, and I do recommend that the Commission eventually look and keep the 80 percent ratio, but just abandon the minimum floor - - the minimum lot area because, again, that was, I think, intended for smaller lots and not necessarily larger lots. I did also want to just continue to raise just a couple of comments. We're definitely opposed from the T6-8 to T5 proposed amendment that's been proposed by City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 MNU. I think it will definitely restrict any development in the areas, and I think it does more harm than good. I think if you look at this site plan, what a larger site like ours allows, it allows us to push a building closer to the street, which is what we know the urban planners like, and allows us to buffer for the back. So we would like, for example, on this site to maybe build a larger site -- to build a larger height and keep that height, but be able to buffer it from the residential neighborhood. So we'd like to con -- seriously urge the Commission to not go ahead and vote in favor -- and you've heard a lot of comments today, but I do think that the proposed floor height amendments by MN -- by Miami Neighborhoods United is probably a kiss of death for any project. First-class retail, residential, and any office projects are going to need those heights. In order to build a first-rate project, you need to have those heights in the city, so I suggest that you -- and I strongly urge that you consider not voting in favor of those. I want to thank you for your time and effort, and much appreciated. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chair Sarnoff Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Ms. Gelabert, I have a question regarding one of the points that Mr. Miller made. Obviously, part ofMiami 21 and something that I think -- I don't think there's any Commissioner here that doesn't want to advocate is making the City ofMiami more pedestrian friendly. I don't think anybody here would want to advocate anything other than that. However, just -- I think in the last Commission meeting, we voted in favor of closing an alley. And what it seems like -- maybe it's an unintended consequence of the pedestrian walkway requirement. It almost seems like it's creating an alley. Not really a pedestrian walkway where pedestrians would actually walk, but just creating an alley. And I just don't understand why we would have -- you know, I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just -- I don't understand why we would have a code that creates, in essence, these alleys that we have been constantly closing throughout the City to unify a property. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think it's different because an alley -- and frankly, not that we would be opposed to alleys. Alleys served a purpose because you were -- usually it was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rear and they were service alleys. They still exist. You have them in Miami Beach, and they exist. On this particular clear -- on the pedestrian walkway, what we are asking is for a pedestrian connection. The code will ask that it would be also not blank walls; that we're walking through an alley, if you will, but it actually has to be active ground level. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, may I? Chair Sarnoff Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. In this partic -- I live very close to that property and it's in the district. In this particular case, that alley would go directly up into a wall. I mean, it would be -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And what we -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and when the gentleman was speaking, we're making notes. If there is something where we would need to tweak on the language that says -- obviously, our intention is not that it goes into a dead-end -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- but it is a pedesfrian walkway. The location of the walkway, it says that if you have a certain amount of feet, you have to have it. Where you place it is up to the designer. So it's not that when the 350 hit, that's where you have to put it. There's flexibility. In this particular diagram, as it appears, it looks like a dead-end. We will need to sit with him and see is there another way. But I just want to give you some examples. The idea isn't -- you have it in many areas of the city. It's like breezeways, making -- Commissioner Suarez: Can I stop you? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- connections -- Sure, you can. Commissioner Suarez: Can I stop you? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: This particular property's on a corner, so it has pedestrian walkways on both sides, on the front and on the side. Would you -- is it your opinion then that on a property of this kind, that it wouldn't be necessary to do an additional "pedesfrian walkway?" Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think, frankly, if it's a property that is -- it's the length of it. And if someone is walking, you may have it on the aerial that it has as two walkways on the corner, but the number what we picked saying that you had 350 was because if the block is long, you may want to have breezeway. Let me tell you the one that I know comes to mind. In the Gables, for example, you have all those developments that are connected through the breezeways. On -- actually on the other side where is the City ofMiami, on 37th Avenue. I think they call it Paseos or something like that. And what you have is you have the sidewalks. You're right there. It's not that you're really walking through, you know, a monumental walkway, but you have that connection that either you can choose to go to the corner of the street or you can go through it. So you can go from the rear -- the less important street into Miracle Mile and have that -- and it's activated. They're not that long, so they do work. I understand -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- that there may be -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- areas where obviously, if there is a dead-end or -- Commissioner Suarez: It doesn't apply in this particular case. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- isn't a connection, what we can do is go back, look at the language and just make sure that the intent doesn't force someone to go into a dead-end. But the importance of the pedestrian walkway, I would insist, is something that we would like so people don't have to walk the whole length and have that possibility. Commissioner Suarez: That makes sense. I just -- in this particular case, I know they would be walking directly into a -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- wall. Mr. Miller: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Was the intention behind that to stop something like an Omni Development where there's an entire --? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It -- that is the condition. And when it came -- one of those developments came through design review, we asked for it because even though they didn't have it, and it just becomes -- if you don't have to have it, there's no connection, so yes, in fact, you may have two streets, but you may not want to go for the full length. And by activating smaller blocks, which it goes to the intention of the lots, you create that walkability that on a smaller -- that in the city you can have without having the feeling that you have to walk 300, 400 feet. You can cut through. Hopefully, if you cut through buildings and it's actually enhanced and there's a pedestrian activity, frankly, there's a little more shade too. There's a little more different of quality, like those arcades we find in other cities in the US (United States) that were built like that. I mean, I can think of you know, Midwestern cities. I mean, we don't have to go to Paris or New York. We can just go to another regular -- so that's the connection. It's to activate the ground level and be able to afford that opportunity that many times is not done. We asked for it on the internal design review, but it's those projects that come every once in a while that we are able to get to review. And this should be a condition that should be -- Again -- Commissioner Suarez: Can we --? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- yes, Mr. Chairman, that is the idea, to avoid that type of mammoth development that became really more like walls into the -- into our fabric. But if there's some tweaking to be done, we'll take care of it. Chair Sarnoff Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I'll ask a question at the end. I have several comments that want to make and I'll do it at the end. Chair Sarnoff All right. Anyone else wishing to be heard, please step up to the mike. If you're not at a microphone now, you will not be heard. That is not the -- let's get somebody over there so we can go right to you. Go ahead. You're recognized. Frances Rollason: My name is Fran Rollason. I live at 686 Northeast 74th Street, one block east of Biscayne Boulevard, abutting a commercial property. I am definitely opposed to the 35-foot height limit. There's an issue on the boulevard. The City is very concerned about parking. There have been ordinances that they've wanted to enact to help the parking situation. The Parking Authority cannot afford to buy any property for municipal parking to create a parking garage. And with a 35-foot height limit, there is no chance that any little buildings can put parking within their footprint. I've heard so many things today that could touch on and I would be very scattered. All I want to say is that Biscayne Boulevard and the historic disfrict between 50th and 77th Street is not a walkable commercial area. Just like Miami 21 is supposed to be walkable and pedestrian friendly, it's not. FDOT considers it a highway. There's no medians in the majority of the disfrict between 62nd and 77th. People are afraid to cross the street. There's a lack of people walking on the boulevard, and there needs to be some density. You know, it doesn't have to be 85, 120 feet tall, but you need density for other people to be in the area besides the little houses that are around there now. I thank you, and I hope that you'll help the area 'cause we work very hard to try to make it better. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized for the record. Jerome Hollo: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. Jerome Hollo, 100 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. I'll fry to keep it brief butt wanted to come down here and discuss something that think is very important. No project in particular, no property in particular, but City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 I want to discuss the T6 zone for lack of a better purpose, downtown, the DDA disfrict. And the reason why I wanted to come here is because I think it's evident with the article that came out today on the taxes, what occurred last year on our property taxes, that had it not been for a lot of the projects that came online at the end of last year, our -- your revenues would be a lot bleaker than they were today. I mean, it's clear that this is a disfrict that drives a lot of the taxable revenues for the City ofMiami. My concern is that a lot of the items in Miami 21 are resfrictive as to development of this district. If nowhere else, this disfrict is really prone to the high -density projects. We want high -density projects. We want people on the streets. We want walkability. I think Miami 21 does a good job pedestrian -wise to keep that. I think we need to take a look, and I think that you should direct staff to take a look at the T6 items as it relates to towers above the pedestrian realm, because I think we need to make that a little bit easier for people to come in and build those projects, not more restrictive. I think we need to invite people to come on down here. I think we need to invite different projects to come up there, and I think we may -- we need to make it easy for them 'cause we need to increase that tax base, not stagnate the tax base. Just one other item I think also. A lot of people have spent a lot of money, millions of dollars, on MUSPs in this T6 district. These things I think we also need to protect 'cause obviously, in these days it's very difficult to get those projects off the ground, to get the financings. So I think you need to protect the MUSPs that are in place, the millions of dollars that were spent, because a lot of times these projects can translate to 5, $6 million in taxable revenue, just each one of those projects. So please consider that. I'd like to see a direction to staff to take a look at Miami 21 as it relates to towers above the pedestrian realm. I'd like to make them less resfrictive. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Estrellita Sibila: Good evening. Estrellita Sibila, with law offices at 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard. I just wanted to bring up a couple of points to follow up on this cross -block connector issue. With regard to affordable housing, this cross -block connector becomes a problem because of the funding guidelines that require the projects to be secured. Another issue that we face in the affordable housing industry and as well as the rest of the development community is going to face is you're going to have a less efficient parking function when you have to provide a cross -block connector at the ground floor level. So what's going to happen is you're going to have less efficient parking designs requiring that your parking podium be increased in order to accommodate the same amount of parking which, again, when we understand the definition of a floor lot ratio, how it works, is that parking area would then be eating up a greater portion of the building that would otherwise be used as sellable or leasable square footage. So these kind of interconnections of how these different provisions within the code come into play need to be paid careful attention to in how it's going to affect the overall development of the site and the placement of these different objects or of the different functions of the building. The other item that I wanted to bring up was specifically when it comes to the exception permits, the code omits any sort of standards that have to be complied with, any sort of approval that would go under an exception process. There are no cri -- there is no criteria in the code that's been listed, so there is nothing explicit that would give any sort of certainty that if you comply with "X,, " "Y, " or "Z, " you are -- you stand to fit it within the criteria to be issued a sort of permit, even though it has to go through a public hearing process. The standards and criteria is very critical. A code without standards stands to be overturned. We need to be cognizant of those issues when we go through and make amendments to this code to fix some of the problems that we see or we could foresee to be a long-term problem for the City, the residents, and the investments and the stakeholders. And again, we welcome the opportunity to make suggestions or to point out some of the additional issues that we found in the application of the code. There are many. There will be many more as we are able to go through and create projects under the code. And we just thank this Commission for giving us this opportunity to bring these issues to your attention today. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Ms. Sibila: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Ana, are there standards in the exception process? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, there is. It's Article -- it's Table 12, 1305. Chair Sarnoff Just want to know. That's all. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And it's on the code. I can read it to you. Chair Sarnoff All right. Anyone else from the public wishing to be heard? Ms. Sibila: I'm sorry. Just for -- as a point of clarification for that -- Chair Sarnoff I'm notgoing to have it back and forth. Ms. Sibila: Well, the language in the code just says based on the following criteria. Chair Sarnoff So you're notgoing to listen to me? Ms. Sibila: -- and then it says period and then it -- Chair Sarnoff So you're notgoing to listen to me? Ms. Sibila: Okay. Chair Sarnoff Either there are -- Ms. Sibila: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff -- standards or there aren't standards. Ms. Sibila: There aren't. Chair Sarnoff Okay. All right. Anybody from the public wishing to be heard? The public hearing is now closed. You want to get up, Mr. Cruz? Mr. Al Cruz: Yeah, one minute. I (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff You want an additional minute? Mr. Al Cruz: Yeah, one minute. Chair Sarnoff Are we going to hear about your tax bases? Mr. Al Cruz: Yes. I have (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff Don't talk about your taxes. Mr. Al Cruz: Okay. Chair Sarnoff Talk about something about Miami 21. Mr. Al Cruz: I was going to ask if there is any provision in the Miami 21 from walk before closing because it's a lot of cases that coming now to code, and the Mayor said that it got to be City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 like a moratorium where all these people are being accused, you know, of doing -- having illegal units or illegal additions or whatever it is without -- and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- and remember - - people don't know -- there is -- they all have homestead. And by homestead, you cannot (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- the lien is mute. It's nothing the lien can do when you got homestead to a person from a quasi-judicial board or the code enforcement. And they doing -- they bringing a lot of those cases and they want all these to do something -- do like a -- go on a moratorium and help the people to become legal about -- or people that bought the houses 20, 30 years ago and now they found that there is an addition done without a permit. I know because in North Miami, they have walk before closing. An inspector from the City come and check their property before closing. Chair Sarnoff All right. So your recommendation to this Commission is that we have inspectors, we hire a bunch of people; and before every closing in Miami, we make sure that every unit's legal? And you'll be paying for that, I guess? Mr. Al Cruz: No, I won't be paying for that because I don't pay taxes to the City. Chair Sarnoff That's what thought. You could close with that. All right, public hearing is now closed, coming back to the Commission. Any Commissioner wish to be heard? Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: You know, I have a couple of questions in nonconforming. My understanding, nonconforming's got to come in front of the Planning and -- or the Commission to -- every 20 years, am I correct, to -- you have to reapply for the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Nonconforming uses -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- not structures. Uses, you have 20 years, and then you can ask for 20 more through a public hearing. Commissioner Gort: Okay. Second question is, I read here somewhere with the -- if a property was to be destroyed during a hurricane or any similar -- they can come back and they can redo the house. And my understanding here under 1121 [sic], that it require to put documents, plans, surveys, the whole works. Under Miami 21, they don't have to do any of that? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: They have to do it. What it is is they can do it by right. They can build the structure as it was before, meaning -- the question came in other hearings saying ifI -- if by an act of God, my house is destroyed, now do I have to build it according to Miami 21 ? And the answer was no. You will be able to build your house just as you had it. Commissioner Gort: So (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: You still need a building permit. Commissioner Gort: Okay. I have to tell you this. You know, I was lucky. I went back to school as an old man, and I look at a lot of the theories and I would sit in class and I would listen to the professors and the teachers and I say that looks real good, but when it comes to implementation, it doesn't work. And I think we're going to have to go through a lot of the steps, and I think a lot of things are going to be coming up. I don't think there's any one perfect code that we can come up with. I think there will be a lot of bugs that we'll have to work on it. My understanding is, how many amendments that we'll be able to do throughout the years and what is the procedure for the amendments? City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: What we had said is that the City would come actually on -- when the hearing -- when Miami 21 was approved, it said that we would come back and do a review and bring whatever amendments we needed to bring to tweak. So the City can come any time. We're Commissioner Gort: Any time. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- the City is not restricted to the two. We will be coming back soon with some of the amendments. I think some of you already had asked us to do some, so those will be. But again, to answer your question simply, the City can come at any time and bring the amendments. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Because I think a lot of that's going to be happening as we go through all this process. You know, the crosswalk -- let's face it. There's some places right now within South Miami Avenue, Coconut Grove, where you see a lot of people walking. I don't think people in Miami would love to walk more than two or three blocks, especially in the summer. Some of these crosswalk, you know, if you -- you're going to be able to eliminate some kind of development that can really benefit the City. I don't see it happening. I don't see that many pedestrians, except for certain entertainment places where you really see people. I mean, let's face it. Maybe things will change. Maybe the future generation will leave the cars at home. They will not buy two and three cars and they'll walk a lot more, but that's something that really look -- we need to look at. That is not fair to all the neighborhoods. I think it works in certain neighborhoods, but it does not work in other neighborhoods. And this is where we got to look at Miami 21. Miami is not unique on all the neighborhoods. There's a lot of differences between -- I wish we could have Coconut Grove all over the City ofMiami. I would love to have that, but unfortunately, we don't have it, and I think it would be very difficult to create that. I would love to do it, believe me. I would love to see Coconut Grove throughout the whole City ofMiami. So I think we're going to be coming back here with some amendments. And I think the residents need to understand that the business people are also part of the residents of the City ofMiami. I mean, they pay taxes the same. Some live within the City. And you, Chairman, know better than anybody else that I think it's about 40 percent of the taxes -- the ad valorem taxes (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by certain districts, which is downtown, Brickell, and the Omni sections. And this is something we got to take care of it. That's about all. Chair Sarnoff Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I'm not going to take up too much time. We've been here and we've all listened to the different concerns of the different interest groups, for lack of a better word. I've never -- I haven't been involved in an issue since I got elected that has so many differing interest groups, so many different opinions, perspectives. It's just incredible. And, you know, there's good reason why some of the things that Miami 21 has adopted are in place. There have been abuses in the past, and you know, I think -- I hope that we haven't gone too far in the opposite direction and handcuffed our ability to be responsive because I know there are people who are responsible builders who do meet with the homeowners associations, who do take the time to understand the concerns of some of the residents and who do have the consent of those residents to build in those areas. So it's very, very hard to do things on a blanket fashion. And I think, you know, I'm going to continue to work with the Planning Department, with my fellow Commissioners, and with all of the people involved to make sure that we have a code that is beneficial not only for the residents, but also for all of the people who enjoy the City ofMiami. And I'm very concerned about affordable housing. Again, as I mentioned, I will be proposing some legislation that I would appreciate if the other Commissioners give it their utmost City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 consideration and we can discuss it. And you know, a lot of these things -- what I've noticed is that reasonable men can differ. And it happens. Whether something -- a zone is T5 or T6-8 or whatever, you know, a reasonable man can differ on some of these issues, and we have to take the argument from that perspective, I think. And also I'm going to be focusing on the green bond. I think, as I mentioned to Ms. Gelabert and in my discussions with her, I think we've come almost all the way there in terms of you know, certainly not making it something that we would want on the front end. My philosophy is that it should be done on an incentive basis, and the reason why, that I explained, was we need to incentivize people to build in this particular time. Why? Because we need the jobs that the construction produces in that particular industry which has been decimated, and we need the jobs that it creates after the construction, particularly if the development is neighborhood friendly. And I think we also want to promote green building, but we don't want to do it at an additional cost. It's bad enough that there is no financing right now in the market. On top of that, we're going to require people to build something green, which has an additional cost, whatever that is, and then on top of that, we're going to require them to put a cash bond to ensure that they build green. So it's like a triple whammy, you know. So from my perspective, I think it's better to create an incentive which will spur development that will increase our tax base, you know, and I explained to you, you know, why I thought that would happen and why that would be more beneficial. Sure, maybe you could get, you know, more money doing it the other way in an abstract fashion, but if nothing gets built because it's -- because you have the triple whammy scenario, then you're not going to get any money. If we create an incentive, we're going to get people to build and then we may not get the maximum that we could have gotten, but we're going to get 80 percent, 90 percent, 95 percent of it. So we need to be very, very sensitive in this particular time. Chair Sarnoff Commissioner Carollo. About 200 years ago, a document was created. It said, We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union, " and that was the United States Constitution, and it wasn't passed. It wasn't passed until ten amendments were provided. Most of us know them as the Bill of Rights, and only then 16 states would agree to be bound by that document. Since then 16 amendments have come about and we call it a livable, breathable document. So in order to form a more perfect union, I guess you form an imperfect document and you continuously amend it. I don't know if people sitting here a hundred years from now may find that there are instead of 26 amendments to the United States Constitution, there may be 36 amendments to the United States Constitution. The point is that no man, no imperfect man can create a perfect document. And if you think you can do so, you're really jousting at a windmill and all you're really trying to do is keep 11000 in place. My major objection to 11000 was that it created an incredible incentive for people to invade what I call R-1 neighborhoods. And forgive me, Commissioner Suarez, but having visited your family and been by the La Corvita (phonetic). I say that right? Okay. This was -- this is the neighborhood of La Corvita (phonetic). And I always wondered -- don't know this man or this woman that owns this house, but I always wondered when they went outside in their backyard and chose to do whatever they chose to do in the confines and security of their backyard, what it was like to look up at the 11 balconies above them. And I surmise that these people probably spent their entire life savings working very hard in the City ofMiami and essentially, that's probably their savings plan was that particular R-1 -- their house, their home. So this is what actually incentivized me to run for this Commission. It was actually this picture here, and that was very simply, how could the City ofMiami allow under 11000 to invade that man or woman's right? Now does it get better when you use angle of demarcation? You know, I'll be honest with you all. When the building built in the Grove -- the Grovenor was built, the developer came before this Commission -- I wasn't here -- and they said the chevron shape will make it disappear into the silhouette of the building. Now I look at the building, don't dislike it, but I can certainly see it. The chevron shape did not make the building disappear, but he actually said that to this Commission. Now some people will say, well, come on, Commissioner, there are certain angles you can take. There's a 53-foot building directly in front of a man's home or a woman's home. Now I wonder when they go outside and they enjoy their particular place in the backyard, do they enjoy looking at the five -story balconies looking directly into their backyard? I simply don't know. And when I got City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 on this Commission, my intention was to protect what saw was a real invasion of people's privacy. It was very easy and very simple to turn around and buy a property that had a very small commercial sliver, come in front of this Commission. I watched it in 2006 when I got elected. I watched it in 2007. I warned everybody in 2007, I think you're overbuilding, but everybody was like -- I must have had three heads on my shoulders. And I watched what called marginal developers buy land, create a C-1, which they said gave them unlimited heights. Then they would turn around, they'd put an SD (Special District) something in the back of it. Before you know it, that step-down procedure of that 12-story building next to that R-1 home was supposed to disappear. It simply doesn't. And that's why I became a supporter ofMiami 21 because it, for the first time, addressed the issue of whatl called neighborhood encroachment. It was simple. And to me it was more important not so much what the corridor of the particular -- Do you want to go Biscayne Boulevard? -- what it looked like to the boulevard, but more importantly, what did it look like to that R-1 neighborhood directly behind it. I believe the majority rule, but believe in minority rights. I believe the United States Constitution is a flexible document, butl believe the man or woman that paid for this building has rights. And I think those rights should be protected. And I watched too many developers come up to this Commission and explain how you'd never see the building they're building in front to this particular place. I remember this development. I remember this developer. Do you all see the building right in front of it? I do. I suspect the person that pays that mortgage every day equally sees it. I know this person sees it every day, every day of his life, and that happens to be a man that owns it, and he was a former fireman for the City ofMiami. So the decision to support Miami 21 to me was always an easy decision. I want to close with saying one thing to everyone. Building a building is not a job. It's a temporary job for a construction worker. It is -- you build the particular edifice, whether it's housing, whether it's a business. That doesn't create a job. That may create a great many people going from this office building Grade C to Grade B to Grade A because the rates are going to come down, and yes, I think the last crunch we're going to feel in the City ofMiami is, I think nationwide, you're going to feel the commercial market collapse. Do I think it's inevitable? I think it's happening, but we just haven't realized yet. So when I hear Commissioners say this is going to create jobs, that doesn't really create jobs. We, as a Commission, we, as a South Florida region, need to stop thinking in the same box that we've been thinking in the past 25 years, and we better start figuring ways of bringing an industry here or recreating or expanding industries we already have here. Because just 'cause you build a building may bring you 1,800 temporary jobs, it simply doesn't bring you a sustainable future unless you have a plan, unless you have some sort of purpose behind it. But that's not Miami 21. You know, I can support any amendment that any Commissioner brings up to Miami 21. I don't pretend to understand or know anyone's district to know how high it should be, where it should be, how it should be. I do know this, it's not so much the Carters that concern me, but it's the guy, the woman, the person that pays the house directly behind that particular place that think that person has a minority right. Maybe the majority thinks that's appropriate, but think it's really important that we protect those folks 'cause that is their property. I don't think they bargained to have six-, seven-, and eight -story buildings looking directly down on their property. And I don't think any developer could tell you, well, you know, it's the chevron shape, you're not even going to see it, when those balconies overlook their backyard. I mean, I have no idea what any of you do in your backyard, but you know what? It's your business. It's your business what you do in your backyard, and it's not the person living on the fourth-, fifth-, and sixth floor balcony's business what you do in your backyard. And I think we, as Commissioners, need to think long and hard about protecting people's privacy 'cause I don't think we do a very good job of it sometime [sic]. So, you know, I'm not going to sit here and -- I obviously have been in a little bit of an advantage to some of you because I've been through the Miami 21. I've created what thought would be the ways I'd like to see it approached. I will say this to MiMo. I never imposed anything with you -- giving you without a transfer of development right to pay for that height. But will tell you this. Bring a 55- or a 53-story building to my office and we will make a way to work it -- to make it fit and work if it works out for the neighborhood. No one's going to preclude it. You're going to get less of a transfer of development right, but there is no one -size -fits -all. You're absolutely right, Commissioner Gort. Each part of this City's different, City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 NA.1 10-00728 and it's not all Coconut Grove and it's not all Allapattah, and that's the beauty and that's the beast of it. You know, the beauty of it is we are a diverse people, and the beast of it is some parts of the City are more rugged than others and through that ruggedness comes ethnicity and through that ethnicity comes great cultural diversity, and that's why I think this City, in the next 30 years, is going to be the greatest place in America to live and I think Miami 21 is the document to live with. So I probably have said enough. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that think everyone who sits here agrees with you to protect the neighborhood, and I think there are certain corridors that need to be protected. But there's other places with the -- you cannot implement the same rules all over. That's where I think the amendments will come in because in different neighborhoods, there'll be different needs. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I agree. I agree with the three of you. I think we -- I think one of the great things about Miami 21 is that it does protect -- it goes a lot farther in protecting the neighborhoods and I'm completely in favor of that goal. Chair Sarnoff Commissioner. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman, I also agree. I see Miami 21 more as a control mechanism to keep it from spawning as it had started out of control where developers just came and had their way, but there are -- just like in everything in life, there are some exceptions, and I think we just need to look at each one individually and make the necessary adjustments, if accepted by the community, that it's livable into the neighborhood. Butl -- it's not a one -size -fits -all, but certainly, it needed to be in place because things were spawning out of control. NON AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEM CHAIR SARNOFF RECOGNIZED THIRD -YEAR LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO ARE APPRENTICING IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. DISCUSSED Chair Sarnoff I want to welcome everybody to the June 2 special meeting of the City ofMiami Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City ofMiami Commission are the Vice Chair, Frank Carollo, Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Wifredo Gort, the honorable reverend, Richard P. Dunn, and myself Marc David Sarnoff, the Chairman. Also on the dais will be, hopefully, our City Manager, Carlos A. Migoya, Julie O. Bru, the City Attorney, and Pamela Latimore, the Assistant City Clerk. Because this is a special meeting, I'm going to dispense with any protocol items or anything of that nature other than to welcome -- we have from the City Attorney's Office a number of third year law students who are -- I'm going to use the word apprenticing -- with the City ofMiami. And I'm going to welcome Matthew R. Wilson, Monica Albarello, Gina Santangelo, Jason Silver, Maziel Soder, Federico Dumenigo, Fritznie Jarbath, John Faulconer, Clayton Sfroleny, Patricia Ferran, and Michael Fernandez, and Claudia Medina. They are from Columbia University, Emory, Villanova, FIU (Florida International University) Law, and from STU (St. Thomas University). What does that stand for? Oh, St. Thomas -- I apologize, St. Thomas. St. Thomas University, as well as UM (University of Miami) Law School. If you'd all just stand up just to -- we could recognize you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff Enjoy your clerking experience with the City. When I was in your shoes, I clerked at -- in New Orleans for the New Orleans CityAttorney's Office, had the time of my life. I City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 NA.2 10-00729 think we got the same pay you're getting. Very little. All right. Commissioner Gort: New Orleans City Attorney Office, that must have been interesting. Chair Sarnoff It was very interesting. We knew how to fix parking tickets. We shouldn't say that, but we could fix any parking ticket. "[Later...]" Chair Sarnoff You're recognized for the record, Ms. Gelaberton [sic]. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning Department): First of all, I would like to follow -- Chairman Sarnoff you introduced the interns for the Legal Department. I do have two interns here that I would also like to introduce. It's Ryan Adams, who's an undergrad at the planning, FA U (Florida Atlantic University), and Susana Siman, who has been with us for the last few months and is going to the Columbia Graduate School of Planning. So I would also like to take the opportunity to introduce them. Chair Sarnoff Why don't you stand up? Applause. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff You're welcome. EXECUTIVE SESSION A PRIVATE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION WAS SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 24, 2010 AT 2:00 PM, REGARDING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF JORGE L. FERNANDEZ VS. CITY OF MIAMI. DISCUSSED Chair Sarnoff All right. Madam City Attorney, I know that you want to read something in the record regarding a shade meeting. Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the City Commission. Under the provisions of Florida Statute 286.011, we're requesting, at the City Commission meeting of June 24, an attorney -client session, closed to the public, for purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the case of Jorge L. Fernandez versus the City ofMiami, pending in the circuit court of the 11 th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami -Dade County. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenses. You can schedule the time now, and we will advertise as is required under the Florida Statute. Chair Sarnoff Aren't we just best -- I haven't looked at the next agenda, but couldn't we just do it during the next special meeting -- next regularly scheduled meeting? Ms. Chiaro: Yes. And I just -- in terms of time of day, on the 24th, we will advertise it. But usually we do it at 2 o'clock, right? Chair Sarnoff Two o'clock okay with everybody? Commissioner Gort: Yes. City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 7/6/2010 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 2, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Two o'clock at the next regular meeting? Ms. Chiaro: So that will be 2 o'clock on June the 24th -- Chair Sarnoff Okay. Ms. Chiaro: -- for that closed session. Chair Sarnoff So it's -- Ms. Chiaro: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff -- not the June 10 meeting? Ms. Chiaro: It's the June 24 meeting. Chair Sarnoff Okay, all right. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, and was passed unanimously, to adjourn today's meeting. Chair Sarnoff All right. Anything else, gentlemen? Motion to recess [sic]? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff Thank you all very much. Commissioner Gort: That's it? Chair Sarnoff Oh, I'm sorry. Motion to adjourn. Commissioner Dunn: Okay, okay. Chair Sarnoff I apologize. City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 7/6/2010