Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2010-12-16 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:00 AM PLANNING AND ZONING 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 11, Commissioner District Five Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Present: Chairman Sarnoff, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Dunn II and Commissioner Gort On the 16th day of December 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 regular session. The meeting was called to order by Chair Sarnoff at 11: 28 a.m., recessed at 12: 03 p.m., reconvened at 6:36p.m., and adjourned at 8: 45 p.m. Note for the record: Vice Chair Carollo entered the chambers at 11: 29 a.m. ALSO PRESENT: Julie O. Bru, City Attorney Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Pamela L. Latimore, Assistant City Clerk ORDER OF THE DAY Chair Sarnofff. All right. We'll now begin the Planning & Zoning items. The City Attorney will state the procedures to be followed during this portion of the meeting. Julie O. Bru (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman -- okay. Before the Planning & Zoning agenda is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn in by the City Clerk. Staff will briefly describe the request, whether an appeal, special exception, vacation, text amendment, zoning change, land use change, or a Major Use Special Permit and make its recommendation. The appellant or petitioner will then present the request. The appellee, if applicable, will present its position. Members of the public will be permitted to speak on certain petitions. Petitioner may ask questions of staff. Appellant or petitioner will be permitted to make final comments. You should also note that the City ofMiami requires that anyone requesting action by the City Commission must disclose before the hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action. Any documents offered to the City Commission that have not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the agenda materials will be entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do you need to swear anyone in or do whatever procedures you need? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, I do. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are going to be speaking on any of the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items that's on the agenda for today, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand so that you can be sworn in. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. [Later..] Chair Sarnofff. From the Administration, while we're in the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) agenda, is there anything else you wish to change in the P&Z agenda? Carlos A. Migoya (City Manager): No, sir. Chair Sarnofff. Is there anything from the Commissioners they wish to change in the P&Z agenda? All right. Now I need to recess this agenda, am I right? City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Ms. Thompson: That is correct. I will have to reset the computer. If you can give us about five minutes -- let's say three minutes. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff. Well, here's the issue, gentlemen. Ms. Thompson: Wait. Hold on now. Do you want me to turn --? Chair Sarnoff. No, no, no. This doesn't need to be taken down, so -- is that right? Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry? Chair Sarnoff. Can you do what you do and we can just talk? Ms. Thompson: No. Whatever you say in your meeting must be -- Chair Sarnoff. Because it's a public hearing. Ms. Thompson: -- on the record. Chair Sarnoff. There you go. Vice Chair Carollo: By the way, thank you, Commissioners. Chair Sarnoff. Don't go anywhere. [Later... Chair Sarnoff. All right, we're back on the record. We're in the P&Z items. I have a request from Commissioner Dunn to take items PZ.13 and PZ.14 first. I will do so. If the Administration would prepare for PZ.13. Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): And ifI could just read the procedures for the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items. Chair Sarnoff. We actually did already. Ms. Chiaro: Oh, I'm sorry. Chair Sarnoff. Where were you? Ms. Chiaro: I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention. I apologize to you -- Chair Sarnoff. You know a person that had a red jacket -- Ms. Chiaro: -- Mr. Chair. Chair Sarnoff. -- on just like you and that hair like yours was up there earlier. Was it you? Ms. Chiaro: Didl read them? Chair Sarnoff Was it you? Ms. Thompson: No, it was not. And ifI might, Chair, we did swear in at that time, but we may have individuals who've come to the meeting, so we may need to swear in again. Ladies and gentlemen, if you plan to testify on any of the P&Z items on the agenda, I will need you to please City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 stand and raise your right hand so I could administer your oath. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: And reminding you that you should have signed in already with us so that you can speak. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 PZ.1 10-00044x PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY GRANTING OR DENYING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, TO ALLOW A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1742 AND 1744 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0070 AND 01-4139-008-0060 AND 1737 AND 1745 SOUTHWEST 2ND COURT, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0080 AND 01-4138-001-5550; MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 10-00044x Analysis. pdf 10-00044x Zoning Map.pdf 10-00044x Aerial Map. pdf 10-00044x Miami 21 Map.pdf 10-00044x Letter of Intent. pdf 10-00044x Application & Supporting Docs. pdf 10-00044x Plans.pdf 10-00044x ZB Reso.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Supplemental Page.pdf 10-00044x ZB Appeal Letter. pdf 10-00044x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00044x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a ExhibitA.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Exhibit 1.pdf 10-00044x CC 12-16-10 Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1742 and 1744 SW 2nd Avenue, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0070 and 01-4139-008-0060 and 1737 and 1745 SW 2nd Court, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0080 and 01-4138-001-5550 [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPELLANT(S): W. Tucker Gibbs, Esquire, on behalf of Brickell View West Apartments, Inc., Adjacent Property Owner APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire, on behalf of Barim at Brickell, LLC, Wetbri Group, LLC and Ignacio and Lourdes Zulueta, Owners and AV Development Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and approval City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 with conditions* of the original request. ZONING BOARD: Approved the Special Exception with conditions* on March 22, 2010 by a vote of 6-1. See related File ID 10-00044x-a. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow a primary and secondary school. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Chair Sarnofff. Madam Clerk, Madam City Attorney, let the record reflect that at the regular agenda of today that Senator Diaz de la Portilla came up and asked for a deferral of this item. I then adjourned the regular -- I'm sorry -- I recessed the regular meeting andl brought this meeting up, andl wanted to put that on the record. Now let me just say this to anyone who's about to get up here and speak. You have two minutes to explain why you need a deferral. Do not get to the merits of your case. Two minutes is what you get to speak on as to why this matter should be deferred, and then we will recognize the Vice Chair. You're recognized for the record. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Chair, ifI may make the record clear. We are handlingPZs (Planning & Zoning) -- Chair Sarnofff. 1 and 2. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sarnofff. You're recognized, Mr. -- Senator. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, members of the audience, Miguel Diaz de la Portilla. I'm an attorney for the applicant on PZ item 1; address, 121 Alhambra Plaza, 10th Floor, Coral Gables. I'm with the law firm of Becker and Poliakoff. We're asking for a deferral because when last we met, this Commission asked us to meet with the objectors and to further meet with staff to address concerns that the objectors had and to address additional questions that staff may have. The reason for that is that the staff was relatively new at the time and that our application was reviewed by the staff that was in place prior to the new director coming on board. We've had several meetings with staff. We've had meetings as late as this week, and we've been asked by staff to submit a number of different proposals, alternatives to address certain issues, questions that they had. We are still in the process of doing that. We have not received any kind of written feedback from staff on our submittals. We've received some comments back from staff verbally but very few and very limited. It is our understanding that there may be additional, more expansive comments made by staff today and by other people who did not test fy at the last hearing. And we would like a reasonable opportunity to continue to meet with staff to be fully aware of what those comments and additional feedback from staff would be and to have a fair opportunity to respond to those. We believe that due process would require us to have and be given that opportunity to further address comments which we have not seen as of this very moment because there has been nothing prepared in writing from staff in response to our submittals. Additionally, we met with the objectors, with their counsel, and we are in the process of negotiating with them. Offers were made, discussions were had, andl think that given some time, we will be able to, number one, properly address whatever comments it is that staff is going to have. We haven't received anything to respond to yet, even though there's been an ongoing conversation; we'd like to continue that and also to continue talking to the objectors. I think that'll make for a fair process, give us ample opportunity, give us due process to be able to address any and all comments and feedback from staff. Thank you. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. All right, you're recognized for the record. City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Tucker Gibbs. I represent the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association and Nelson Rodriguez and others on this matter. I'm here today to object to this request for a couple of reasons. Number one, just a reminder to this board, we are not objectors. We are the appellants in this matter. This is our matter that we've taken up to come before you, number one. Number two, the City Commission, at the meeting on October 28, made the specific request. They closed the public hearing. They didn't -- you all did not ask for additional evidence, which is my understanding that's what's going to be presented to you today. You all specifically closed the public hearing. You said you would open it only for questions and answers from the attorneys relating to one issue, whether or not we'd come to a settlement or not. That was it. It wasn't to allow the appellee to come and meet with City staff. City staff was not even brought up in your discussion. You didn't discuss -- you didn't direct City staff to obtain new evidence, to bring new evidence to you. You said you had -- after how many hours was that hearing, four hours, five hours -- substantial evidence. Vice Chair Carollo: Seven. Mr. Gibbs: Seven. Thank you, Commissioner. And that's the issue here. In addition, you asked them specifically -- the two parties to meet. The day after the hearing, an e-mail (electronic) went to Mr. Diaz de la Portilla saying we are ready, able, and willing to meet with you. We received no response until two weeks ago when we were told we can meet this week; I mean this week right now. We immediately e-mailed back and said we would be available on Monday. We met on Monday. The idea that they can come to you now after waiting all this time and ask for a deferral when they had the opportunity to meet with us the week after the public hearing that you all heard. Finally, we have concern about this issue of due process. Due process is not an issue here because you closed the public hearing and you got the evidence. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: So we say, please, no deferral. Chair Sarnofff. Anyone else who needs to be heard on the deferral? Amy Huber: Good morning. Amy Huber with the law firm of Shubin & Bass, on behalf of the other appellants. We also object to the request for a deferral. We believe that this matter's fully vetted, that the Commission's made a decision. And I'd just like to point out if what the applicant is proposing at this point is a new application or a new site plan or new information, then we believe that you should grant the appeal, deny the application without prejudice and let them bring back something more appropriate. Thank you. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard just on the deferral of the issue? All right, hearing none -- Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnofff. You don't need to rebut what they said. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: There's some inaccurate statements made on the record. I feel -- Chair Sarnofff. I'm going to give you 30 seconds to correct the inaccurate statements. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: Number one, we responded to their request to meet on December 2, the Tuesday right after they requested it. Number two, we could not meet on the week of December 6 because I was in session in Tallahassee for the first week of committee meetings, and so I was unavailable at that time. And for the record, you did instruct us, and the record reflects, to talk City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 with staff and meet with staff and we've been in that ongoing process with staff for the last month. That is a fact. And in fact, this Commission did instruct us to do that because you were going to get additional feedback from your staff. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Vice Chair, you're recognized for the record. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, I do have the record. I have the minutes here, and l just want to point out to everyone. Maria Chiaro, our deputy City Attorney, Mr. Chair, before you vote on this deferral, I would like for the members of the Commission to make clear the process to be followed when this comes back. If in fact, the public hearing and all presentations are concluded at this meeting and it will be coming back only for Commission deliberation or if there is further testimony the Commission is going to take, the record should be made clear before you vote on the deferral. Chairman Sarnoff, I agree. We'll let the district Commissioner make that decision. Myself, I think all the testimony that we received from the public should not continue in the next meeting because I think it's going to just be redundant. I think everyone who had a chance who wanted to speak had a chance to speak. I think for the next meeting it should be within the Commission, the Commissioners. And as far as the applicant and the appellants, maybe respond to any questions that a Commissioner or the Commission may have or additional questions. But I don't think we need additional presentation. I think it should just be answering questions from this Commission and hopefully proffering some type of consensus or some type of agreement that they've worked within each other. So I specifically remember, without reading the minutes, that the direction of this Commission was for both parties to meet and actually come to a consensus. And what would like to hear is what consensus has been reached and what has been done to reach the consensus. Is there a consensus? Chair Sarnoff Mr. Diaz de la -- Senator. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: There is no consensus. Again, we met with staff to address the issues because questions were asked of your Planning and Zoning director at the last meeting regarding what his view was, given that you had a staff recommendation to deny the appeal and approve the underlying application. The staff indicated to the Commission that it wanted additional information and to view additional information, so we've done that. We met with the appellants/objectors and we have not reached an agreement. But I point out to you that it's the first and only meeting I've had with the appellant. I wasn't the attorney of record on this matter when the matter first came up and when conversations were had prior to and shortly after the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation again of approval of the underlying application and denial -- removal -- approval of the underlying application rather. So we have not reached a consensus, but we believe that we can come a lot closer and address a lot of the issues if given the opportunity. Vice Chair Carollo: Ma'am, if -- Ms. Huber: If you want to, I'm happy to comment. He's correct. We have not reached a consensus. We have been meeting, though, with the applicant for the better part of almost a year. And pursuant to your direction on October 29, I personally sent an e-mail to Mr. Diaz de la Portilla requesting a meeting at the earliest convenience to discuss this. I did not receive a response to that e-mail 'til December 2. So we have been willing and able to meet. We did make a proffer at our meeting on Monday, to which we have not received a response. We believe that the applicant in this matter has had more than sufficient time to evaluate proposals and we, again, would urge you to deny the deferral and to vote on this matter. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized. City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Vice Chair Carollo: And what was the proffer? Would you be --? Ms. Huber: Let me just -- they were settlement negotiations. If my client says I can -- Our proffer would be to have the applicant initially open a school with 600 students and gradually, over a four- to five-year period, if very specific benchmarks are met and that the applicant can show that and demonstrate that traffic mitigation is working and that the site and the neighborhood can handle a school, they can gradually increase to a maximum of 900 students. We haven't worked out the specifics with respect to the benchmarks or how they would increase, whether it would be 50 or 75 students, but something in that range to a maximum of 900 students. And just so that it's clear, our traffic consultant has advised that she believes this site can only handle 300 students, so we believe that we are being more than fair and are truly negotiating in good faith at reaching the 900 number. And the reason for the gradual increase is everyone has, you know, great plans for mitigate -- traffic mitigation andl think we can all think of some sites when it hasn't worked. And after it's open, there's nothing anyone can do. And so the reason is we want to make sure that before they continue to add additional students, it really is working and that this neighborhood can handle the traffic. So that's our proposal and that's what was left with them on Monday. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Gibbs, you want to say something? Mr. Gibbs: Yes. As I said, I represent the Miami Neighborhoods -- Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. And we -- my clients do have a problem. Their board met and their board had made the determination based on the traffic study that 600 was too much; 400 was as far as they would go above the 300 that the traffic planner -- and that creates a real problem in the neighborhood. We have a variety of other rationale that I won't share -- I don't need to burden you with at this point, but our position is that 400 students is what the neighborhood could bear, even maybe, even that. Oh, and I'm sorry, elementary students only. Sorry. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized, Vice Chair. Vice Chair Carollo: Oh, beforehand, Mr. Diaz de la Portilla said that there was no consensus. Are you anywhere close to any of these numbers? Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: The -- two quick points. Number one, the number of 900 was the number that was proffered to us on Monday. What we advised the attorneys, Mr. Shubin and Ms. Huber, was that in order to take a look at that number, we had to do a couple of things. Number one, you have to make sure that the financing and the numbers work and we have to speak to banking institutions for that. Number two, we have to talk to the board ofMater Academy, which will be the one running it and applying the educational program. That you cannot do in a 24-hour period. I think that between the 900 and the 1,700, you know, there is room for discussion. I will say that, again -- and this board was here, they heard it; don't need to remind them. The only traffic study that was done by a licensed PE (Professional Engineer), traffic engineer, was the study that we presented and introduced. The appellants and objectors did have testimony from traffic planners who are not PEs and who did not conduct an independent traffic study. But having said that, we think that if we are given the opportunity to continue meeting and speaking, including further opportunity with your staff I think we can come up with something that will be better for everyone. Vice Chair Carollo: And by the way, it sounds like you're closer, but it still seems to me like you're a little far away. And it's 400 to 1, 700 because I don't want to leave someone out. I remember someone saying 400, so I think it's within those limits. Here's where I stand with this. I believe that everyone -- the consensus is that having a school there will be a good thing. I think City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 every Commissioner here thinks that. I think everyone out there thinks that. The issue is the size of the school, andl think that's the real issue. This Commission, I think, was loud and clear at the last meeting saying that 1, 700 was way, way, way too many students. With that said, and as far as a deferral, here's what I'm looking at. If now we vote on this and grant the appeal, does the school go away? Ms. Huber: No. Vice Chair Carollo: And that's my issue because I think having a school there will be a good thing. So I always welcome additional discussion/debate in order to reach a consensus to see if we can have a school there within reason by all three parties, and that's what I'm looking at. So I would like to maybe hear from the director of Planning, our director of Planning and give us suggestions. Do we have to defer this? What -- how are you seeing this? And again, my focus is, yes, I think we should have a school there. The way it's presented, it's way too large, but how can we not, in essence, kill this and be able to have, you know, further negotiations, so to speak, in order to have a school that is reasonable there? Francisco Garcia: Thank you, sir. Francisco Garcia, Planning director. At this point in time, Commissioner, both options are available. If the item were to -- if the appeal were to be accepted or approved, I believe that the appeal that has been proffered to you or that has been presented to you is an appeal without prejudice which would then send this application back to staff for further elaboration, on the one hand. On the other hand, if you saw fit to allow the dialogue between the applicant and the appellant to continue and it seemed to everyone involved that there was room for compromise that is acceptable ultimately to the Commission, that too is a viable course of action. What I can tell you -- what we can tell you as staff at this point in time is that the application that is before you, we continue to believe is flawed and there is cause for concern, and that we believe that any modifications to it might require significant, or to the very least, substantial redesign. And that being the case, we remain available to answer any additional questions you may have. Vice Chair Carollo: So my question is, if we approve the appeal, will the school, in your opinion, go away or can they resubmit a new application? And is it --? Andl will have to then ask will it be a major burden and what will that burden be? I mean, 'cause it seems like there are a lot of issues and it may just be better to grant the appeal and have them just resubmit and have, at that time, everyone talk it out. So I wanted -- Mr. Garcia: And to provide a clear answer to the question, I can address the first part, and then I will defer to someone who knows better than I on the second. On the first part, the sort of appeal that is presented to you, which is an appeal without prejudice, would have the effect of sending the application back to staff to conduct design review and potential adverse impact review. As pertains to the economic or financial feasibility, I would certainly defer to those who know. Vice Chair Carollo: Which is actually, I think, what Mr. Diaz de la Portilla said, as far as dealing with staff and with you. Mr. Diaz de la Portilla, would you address that, please? Mr. Diaz de la Portilla: We believe that the appropriate course of action would be to defer the application to give us an opportunity to continue speaking with the appellants and objectors and with staff. The recommendation -- the only written recommendation that you have received, that we have received and that we have seen from staff is a recommendation of approval of the underlying application and denial of the appeal. The testimony that has been presented today by your Planning & Zoning director that they have concerns and don't -- or have doubts regarding the underlying application is, in essence, new as far as what is in the public record. We would like an opportunity, once again, to repeat our request for deferral and have that opportunity to continue our conversations with staff and with the objectors and appellants. City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff. You're recognized. Vice Chair Carollo: Can I have the floor? Thank you. Okay. I'm leaning towards -- at least my vote, andl will urge my colleagues to follow my lead -- the deferral to the next PZ meeting -- actually, it will be a continuance to the next PZ meeting. However, we will decide at that meeting. I encourage all of you not to wait two weeks, not to wait three weeks. I encourage all of you to start dialogue right now, as soon as possible because, in all fairness, if we had to vote right now, at least this vote, we would be granting the appeal. I think 1, 700 -- and the Commission said this in the past -- is way too much. I think -- I'm actually -- I'm closer to that 400, but at the same time, I could be flexible. Andl like the idea of doing it in phases where every year -- and ifI understand correctly, every year there'd be 75, 100 students added or so forth. And as a matter of fact, from testimony in the past, I think you mentioned that you couldn't do all students at one time anyways; you would have to phase them in. So I think that would be a good idea. So that's where I'm at, and would make a motion to defer this item -- continue this item to the next PZ meeting. Chair Sarnoff. All right. We have -- Commissioner Suarez: Second -- Chair Sarnoff. -- a motion to continue -- Commissioner Suarez: -- for discussion. Chair Sarnoff. -- by the Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized for the record. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sometimes I can't really understand what goes on up here, but anyhow, my pension has always been since I got here to let parties negotiate. There's really no reason not to let parties talk and discuss things. A month may go by; they may not be any further along, and they can come back and say they're not further along. I don't think that we should limit ourselves to saying we have to make a decision in the next meeting because there's no reason to necessarily -- I mean, I can't think of any reason to necessarily put that burden on ourselves if there's productive negotiations. I think the question should really be, you know, is there -- do you both reasonably believe that you can get to a settlement? I mean, I remember there was one P&Z item that was in my district and both the applicant and the appellant or whatever -- the other side of the application, they both looked at each other and said, look, there's just no room for -- that's it; it's over. There's no room for negotiation. We're not going to be able to settle it, and a decision needs to be made. And you know, I think the parties are showing a willingness to continue to discuss it. What's your name? Ms. Huber: Amy Huber. Commissioner Suarez: Ms. Huber discussed in her phasing proposal that you had certain benchmarks without any details. I'm sure that the other applicant and yourself would want to know what the details are of any kind of a benchmark before a decision is made on whether or not there's a negotiation. So I mean, it seems to me like this is a pretty complicated matter. I mean, we had seven hours of discussion on it last time. We've had several meetings on this issue. Again, to echo the Vice Chairman's comments, no one is against the school. The only thing at issue is the size of the school, so everyone knows what the tenor of the Commission is on this issue. You know, there's really no hiding the ball. So it's just a matter of continuing to discuss it. If you guys continue to think -- you know, hopefully, you guys make progress from now until the City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 next meeting, but if you don't, you don't. You come back and you say, look, you don't. I think there is a certain issue which wasn't discussed in terms of resources and a community organization such as the Roads. You know, there's a resource limitation issue where you're not going to continue to spend money on attorneys, you know, forever. Andl think that is a sensitivity, andl think that's something that has to be taken into account because you have parties that have, you know, differences in terms of their resources and their ability to constantly hire lawyers and pay lawyers to negotiate and to talk and talk and talk and talk. So there has to be some productive dialogue, but you know, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be continued. Chair Sarnoff. Anyone else? Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Gort: Well -- Chair Sarnoff. Let me have Commissioner Gort, and then we'll come back to you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Gort: -- I'm always in favor people getting together, and I'm going to give you an example that happened here in the Grove maybe about 12 years ago. Twenty-second Avenue and Dixie Highway. There's this three-story building in there that's having a lot of problems. Original, the people that wanted to use that land, it was to put a drive-in teller for a bank. The people objected to it and look what they have now. I'm always think -- I think everyone knows we need a school within that area. We got new people moving in. We got new buildings coming in there. You have younger people coming in and they have kids and they need a school. When you look at this map in here, you can see the triangle, andl can see the neighborhood, the Roads Association being opposed for it, but it really affects -- the person being affected personally, right next door, they're the people that are willing to sit down and talk to them. I think there always should be an opportunity that people talk together. I think they're getting the feeling there's too many students. They need to do something. And also, I understand they got to look at the -- at their budget. They got to look at the economic impact and if they can do it and -- but I'm all in favor of deferral and to get together and be -- when you get together, be open-minded. Don't be closed -minded. Get together and come up with some solutions. Chair Sarnoff. Mr. Vice Chair, let me go to Commissioner Dunn, then I'll come back to you. Vice Chair Carollo: Sure, not a problem. Commissioner Dunn: As been the pattern and the format of this Commission, we usually follow the lead of the district Commissioner out of respect, and we will continue -- I see no reason why I would differ from that on today. But one of the things that I've been hearing resoundingly and being constantly reverberated is -- and a lot of times this is a bad word, but it is a reality. The art of politics is compromise. And so if you can come together and come to an agreement, many times -- I don't think -- I think most of us on this dais had very strong -- we're very strong-willed. In fact, it takes a little ego to be up here. We have big egos. Anybody that's successful has to have an ego. But when you are trying to work together, then you give up some of your dogmatism and you say, you know what, let me see ifI can just give a little, take a little, give a little for the good. Andl believe if that is done in sincere earnest, you know, you might be able to strike an agreement. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chair Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Later..] City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Vice Chair Carollo: With that said, I think there is no member in this Commission or in the audience that can say that try to avoid dialogue or debate or discussion. I always welcome it, andl just don't want to get misinterpret. The reason why I said we should decide in the next meeting is not because I want the dialogue to stop and we just have to make a decision because that's it, that's the due date. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there are two options that potentially can result in compromise. One is approving this appeal and then refilling [sic], which I don't think will cost much and so forth, and then we'll have the time to actually meet with staff go over all the issues and really have that dialogue that, realistically, we are encouraging them to do. And at the same time, both parties -- actually, three parties can actually negotiate and continue to negotiate. What I am saying is since we could take both route, let's take the deferral route now and you all know, just judge by my history. I've always deferred and -- actually, there's going to be an item in the Commission meeting that I'm going to ask for a deferral 'cause I didn't have enough time to read, so I welcome a deferral and, you know, having people negotiate and talk it out. Today, when we were ratifying the Mayor's choice or appointment for City Manager, I mean, didl vote for him? Yes. However, didl open it up for dialogue? Yes. So I just don't want to get misinterpret that I want negotiations to end and stop and so forth and we will make a decision and it's an ultimatum. No, I'm not saying that. What I said is I'm leaning -- and that's why I made the motion -- to grant the deferral. But what I'm trying to avoid is this to linger on and linger on and be used as a tactic, as a strategy. So that's why I said at the next meeting, if there is no consensus, let's approve the appeal and then have them start the whole process again and so forth because what I'm trying to avoid is for that school not to happen or so forth within reason. I mean, if they tell me that the only way that there could be a school there is to have, I don't know, 1,700, 1,500, 1,200 students, then I think we may have a problem. So I just want to make sure that don't get misinterpret and we can move on with this. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Chair Sarnoff. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Andl thinkl understand what the Vice Chairman's talking about. I think there are some benefits to taking it in that direction and, you know, I don't want him to think -- or I don't want anyone to think that I don't support the same philosophy that Commissioner Dunn has espoused where we've given great, great deference to the district Commissioner on items that are district specific so -- yeah, andl got it. Chair Sarnoff. And let me just pipe in by saying, you know, time is the champion of every successful negotiation. As a litigator, far too many successful negotiations, unfortunately, happen on the courthouse steps. And I think what the Vice Chair is trying to say, Senator, is don't let it happen on the courthouse steps. Try to get it done ahead of time. With that said -- or equally, it's probably my neighborhood that would benefit the most. However, I will not impose -- I will not do anything other than what the district Commissioner wants, andl will not impose upon the Roads something that will burden them to the benefit of my neighborhood 'cause I think that's the one thing we do up here is we act in concert with each other. And you know, I think you should take what is being said up here to heart and go back to your client and suggest to them if you intend on putting a school here, it's going to be substantially different than the one you first tendered. All right, gentlemen. We have a motion -- do we have a motion to defer? Ms. Thompson: Yes. You have a motion and a vote [sic] to continue. And l just want to make -- Chair Sarnoff. Sorry. Ms. Thompson: -- sure that we're -- this motion for continuance would be on PZs 1 and 2, and they will be continued to the PZ meeting of January 27, 2011. City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 PZ.2 10-00044x-a Chair Sarnoff All right. So we have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, please say "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff All right. Madam -- is there any other P&Z item that we intend on deferring, amending, changing, Mr. Manager. Mr. Garcia: My apologies, Mr. Chairman. There are two PZ items, so I believe that requires two votes. Two separate votes; one for PZ. 1 and one for PZ. 2. Chair Sarnoff Can we --? Ms. Thompson: I stated on the record, because it was the continuance of both items, that one vote would be for PZs 1 and 2. Chair Sarnoff All right. Mr. Garcia: My apologies. Ms. Thompson: Uh-huh. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD AND THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, TO ALLOW A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1742 AND 1744 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0070 AND 01-4139-008-0060 AND 1737 AND 1745 SOUTHWEST 2ND COURT, AND TWO UNASSIGNED ADDRESSES, HAVING FOLIO NUMBERS 01-4139-008-0080 AND 01-4138-001-5550; MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 PZ.3 10-00850v 10-00044x Analysis. pdf 10-00044x Zoning Map.pdf 10-00044x Aerial Map. pdf 10-00044x Miami 21 Map.pdf 10-00044x Letter of Intent. pdf 10-00044x Application & Supporting Docs. pdf 10-00044x Plans.pdf 10-00044x ZB Reso.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Supplemental Page.pdf 10-00044x-a ZB Appeal Letter. pdf 10-00044x-a CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00044x-a CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a ExhibitA.pdf 10-00044x & 10-00044x-a Exhibit 1.pdf 10-00044x-a CC 12-16-10 Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1742 and 1744 SW 2nd Avenue, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0070 and 01-4139-008-0060 and 1737 and 1745 SW 2nd Court, and Two Unassigned Addresses, Having Folio Numbers 01-4139-008-0080 and 01-4138-001-5550 [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPELLANT(S): John K. Shubin, Esquire, on behalf of 1701 Brickell Condominium, LLC and Peacock Development, LLC, Adjacent Property Owners APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire, on behalf of Barim at Brickell, LLC, Wetbri Group, LLC and Ignacio and Lourdes Zulueta, Owners and AV Development Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and approval with conditions* of the original request. ZONING BOARD: Approved the Special Exception with conditions* on March 22, 2010 by a vote of 6-1. See related File ID 10-00044x. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow a primary and secondary school. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Note for the Record: Please refer to item PZ.1 for minutes referencing item PZ.2. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY DENYING A VARIANCE AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 8, City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 SECTION 803.3.2, TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SIDE FIRST -FLOOR SETBACKS FOR AN "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND "NCD-3" COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AS FOLLOWS: TO ALLOW A SIDE FIRST -FLOOR SETBACK OF 11'5" (25'0'. REQUIRED TOTAL SIDE IN NORTH AND SOUTH), EXISTING IN NORTH 6'1", PROPOSED IN SOUTH 5'4", REQUEST TO WAIVE 13'7", FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1796 SOUTH BAYSHORE LANE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 10-00850v Analysis. pdf 10-00850v Zoning Map.pdf 10-00850v Miami 21 Map.pdf 10-00850v Aerial Map. pdf 10-00850vApplication & Supporting Documentation.pdf 10-00850v Plans. pdf 10-00850v PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00850v PZAB Appeal Letter. pdf 10-00850v CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00850v CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 10-00850v Exhibit A. pdf 10-00850v CC 12-16-10 Fact Sheet.pdf Motion by Chairman Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Dunn II and Gort Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez R-1 0-0570 Chair Sarnoff I guess we start at PZ.1, gentlemen. Vice Chair Carollo: No. Commissioner Gort: No. Vice Chair Carollo: PZ. 3. Chair Sarnoff Three. Did we do 1 and 2? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Vice Chair Carollo: It was deferred, remember? Ms. Thompson: One and two were deferred. Vice Chair Carollo: How could you forget? Chair Sarnoff I'm having such a good time, I just forgot. PZ.3. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Thank you, sir. PZ.3 is a variance appeal. This case is before you as an appeal. The variance request was denied by the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board, and it comes to you as the petitioner is the property owner on appeal. The property address is 1796 South Bayshore Lane. And this is a setback -- a side setback variance which would actually require a relaxation of 13 feet 7 inches from the 25-foot cumulative setback provided for in NCD-3 in Coconut Grove. The Planning Department recommends denial and the City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 PZ.4 10-01205sc Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board actually denied the variance. It is before you on appeal. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Chair Sarnoff. All right. Is there anyone from the general public wishing to be heard on PZ.3? Yes, sir, you're recognized for the record. Peter Kemanash: My name is Peter Kemanash. I am here to support the staff's recommendation and the vote that was taken by the Planning and Zoning Board. I don't see anybody here to speak on behalf of the homeowner. I'm here to speak on behalf of the other homeowners that are adjacent to this property. My house is directly next door. It's 1800 South Bayshore Lane. The people that spoke at the Planning and Zoning Board where they landslide denied this. Maurice Weiner asked me to come here and speak on his behalf, 1734 Bayshore Lane, and Denis Lehtinen (phonetic), 1828 Bayshore Lane. There are other ways for this person to build what he needs to build. He just chooses not to. And what is occurring is that this property is on the bay. Therefore, the people that are walking down the sidewalk, people that ride their bicycles down the road are going to be prevented from seeing the bay at all once this structure is there. And what's even more obnoxious about this is that this structure that is being built is a full story and it's storage for a vessel. I am asking you to please support these gentlemen and deny this variance. Chair Sarnofff. All right. Let me make a motion. Having heard no evidence of hardship, I hereby deny the appeal, andl make the motion toward that effect. Commissioner Gort: Second. Vice Chair Carollo: I have a motion by Commissioner Sarnoff to deny, seconded by Commissioner Gort. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the denial, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: Anyone in opposition have the same right to say "nay. " Motion carries unanimously. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE A STREET AND AN EASEMENT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SOUTHWEST 32ND ROAD AND SOUTHWEST 1ST AVENUE, WHICH STREET AND EASEMENT ABUT SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 10-01205sc Analysis. pdf 10-01205sc Miami21 Map.pdf 10-01205sc Zoning Map.pdf 1 0-01205sc Aerial Map.pdf 10-01205sc Public Works Analysis. pdf 10-01205sc Plat & Street Letter. pdf 1 0-01205sc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 10-01205sc Survey & Tentative Plat. pdf 10-01205sc PZAB Reso.pdf 10-01205sc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-01205sc ExhibitA.pdf 10-01205sc CC 12-16-10 Fact Sheet. pdf 10-01205SC-Submittal-Photographs. pdf LOCATION: Approximately the Northwesterly Corner of SW 32nd Road and SW 1st Avenue, which Street and Easement abut SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPLICANT(S): Hernando Carrillo, Owner and Architect, on behalf of Inigo Enterprises, Inc. FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on September 2, 2010 by a vote of 7-0. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on November 17, 2010 by a vote of 8-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will return the subject parcels and SW 22nd Terrace to their original condition prior to the latest re -platting. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort R-10-0571 Chair Sarnofff. All right, PZ.4. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Item PZ.4 is a resolution before you that seeks to close a street and an easement at northwest -- at -- the address approximately is northwest of Southwest 32nd Road and Southwest 1st Avenue, abutting Southwest 22nd Terrace. IfI may make reference to the image that you see in your monitors, in order to clarify this item, which has led to some confusion in the past, we will say that the square, the red square that you see north of Southwest 22nd Terrace marked as A and the rectangular shape south of it, which is marked B, are the two -- one is an easement and the other one is a dedication that are sought to be closed off or done away with by this proposal. The result of this proposal, if approved by you, would be to undo portions of what was once a replatting of these two properties affected. And the intended result is to leave the two properties as they existed prior to the replat and allow them to remain whole as duplex residential lots. The only development that would be available for those two parcels, City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 given their present zoning, would be duplex residential structures. Andl would like to finally emphasize that Southwest 22nd Terrace, as it presently exists, would in no way be altered and would continue to function as it presently functions. That's all have -- Vice Chair Carollo: So moved. Mr. Garcia: -- by way of presentation. Chair Sarnoff All right, we have a motion by the Vice Chair, second -- Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Sarnoff -- by -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Sarnoff -- Commissioner Suarez. Public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to be heard on PZ.4? Never snatch -- Vice Chair Carollo: Don't -- just -- Chair Sarnoff Right. Vice Chair Carollo: -- let it be. Luis Herrera: My name is Luis Herrera, president of Vizcaya Homeowner Association. I come down to verifi, and specify because by the way be reading the paper they send it to the neighbor, they mention they going to close this street. I got some picture here for the record for the future. Never been used these two lot easement. They never been use. I want you to see the picture that I mark easement at the bottom. It's like that from 1985, I think. I can't remember exactly the year. Commissioner Gort: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it at one time, they wanted to have a building in there? Okay. Mr. Herrera: By that time you tried to get into -- running for Commissioner by that time. And these other pictures over here, you can see 1st Avenue, 32nd Road the buses using 1st Avenue, and 32nd Terrace over here that's open, and you can see everyone. Commissioner Gort: Who owns this? Mr. Herrera: Do you see in the picture over there in the easement, in both easement, never been use, but it's exactly the way it is by 1985 or something like that. Now, we agree to give the people back the easement, the owner of the property, because in 1995, that's the settlement we have, to give it back the easement, so they can keep it, the easement, to build duplex in that particular place. So that's only I want to be sure in the record that this easement is back to the man, keeping it at 22nd Terrace open like the way it is in the picture over there and maintaining -- that's why all the peoples in the neighborhood, they send the message -- they send it with the City ofMiami and vote against it because the translation in the paper is wrong, and that's why I'm sure they want to be -- Chair Sarnoff Okay. Mr. Herrera: -- like that. City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 PZ.5 10-01179xc Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Vice Chair Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Carollo: Could we have the -- Mr. Garcia, Planning director, address his concerns so we can move on. Mr. Garcia: Yes. I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Herrera. And his concerns are, while valid, fully taken into consideration by this application. What we are in fact proposing to be done here today is exactly what Mr. Herrera has been fighting for for over ten years now. Vice Chair Carollo: Excellent. Chair Sarnoff All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion, gentlemen? It is a resolution. All in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION, REQUIRING CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, UNDER CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES (24) OF "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, TO ALLOW A NEW FIRE STATION, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 990 NORTHEAST 79TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 10-01179xc Analysis. pdf 10-01179xc Miami21 Map.pdf 10-01179xc Zoning Map.pdf 10-01179xcAerial Map.pdf 10-01179xc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 10-01179xc Plans.pdf 10-01179xc PZAB Reso.pdf 10-01179xc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-01179xc ExhibitA.pdf 10-01179xc CC 12-16-10 Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 990 NE 79th Street [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff- District 2] APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 17, 2010 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will allow a new fire station facility. City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort R-10-0572 Chair Sarnoff PZ.5. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): PZ.5 is a special exception with City Commission approval. The proposal for your review is a fire -- a new fire station facility proposed to be built at 990 Northeast 79th Street. This item is recommended for approval by your Planning Department and it was also recommended for approval by the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board by a vote of 9-0. Vice Chair Carollo: So moved. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Sarnoff All right, public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard on PZ.5, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to the Commission. It is a resolution. All in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff Okay. PZ.6. Commissioner Suarez: We pass -- we did that one. That was mine. Mr. Garcia: PZ.6 had been addressed already, sir. Chair Sarnoff Oh, I'm sorry. Did we do that one? PZ.6 ORDINANCE 10-00185zc1 Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T6-8 0" URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE TO "T5-0" URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE, FOR PROPERTIES ALONG SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET (CORAL WAY), GENERALLY BOUND BY SOUTHWEST 17TH AVENUE TO THE EAST AND SOUTHWEST 37TH AVENUE TO THE WEST, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-00185zc PAB Reso.pdf 10-00185zc Legislation (Version 3) Passed on First Reading with Modifications on March 25, 2010 10-00185zc1 CC Legislation (Version 1).pdf 10-00185zc1 Exhibit A. pdf 10-00185zc1 CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Properties Along SW 22nd Street (Coral Way); Generally Bound City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 by SW 17th Avenue to the East and SW 37th Avenue to the West [Commissioner Francis Suarez - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on March 3, 2010 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to "T5-O" Urban Center Transect Zone. NOTE(S): The City Commission passed this item on First Reading with modifications on March 25, 2010 as File ID 10-00185zc; it was indefinitely deferred on April 22, 2010. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13237 Chair Sarnoff All right, Francis, go. Here's a curve ball. PZ. 6. Commissioner Gort: Six? Chair Sarnoff Six. Commissioner Gort: Four and fives [sic] are out? Chair Sarnoff Then we'll start belting them out. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): PZ.6 is also a proposal for a zoning change. In this case, this item is before you on second reading. What we are doing by way of this application is completing a cycle that was begun some time ago and that frankly, in the minds of many, had been completed, but to some people's surprise, it had not. So here it is back before you. This is the proposal to rezone the Coral Way corridor from 17th Avenue, that is, Southwest 17th Avenue west towards Southwest 37th Avenue; all the properties along the Coral Way corridor. Those fronting the Coral Way corridor will be rezoned from T6-8 0 to T5-0. That is the proposal before you. I know that you've heard plenty of testimony regarding this item, and so I'll end my presentation here and certainly answer any questions, if you should have some. Chair Sarnoff Let me open up for a public hearing. Is anybody from the general public wishing to be heard on PZ. 6? Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, here as secretary ofMiami Neighborhoods United, speaking to thank you fine gentlemen, especially the district Commissioner, Commissioner Suarez, for taking the lead on this and doing this wonderful move to help protect the integrity of Miami's residential neighborhoods. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Anyone else from the general public wishing to be heard? Miguel Maurice: My name is Mike Maurice. I'm the owner of the Blockbuster property on 37th City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Avenue and Coral Way. I just wanted to bring something to the Commission's attention. Francisco mentioned that all the properties fronting Coral Way are going to get rezoned. Our property is quite unique in which the side of our property is on Coral Way, but we really front 37th Avenue. We have 250 linear feet on 37th Avenue versus 85 linear feet on Coral Way, so we consider our primary frontage 37th Avenue. As you all probably know, 37th Avenue itself south of Coral Way is zoned T6-8 and will continue to be zoned T6-8, and we ask this Commission to consider our appeal to calling our property fronting Coral Way when in fact we 're not. We're actually fronting 37th and therefore please consider keeping our property T6-8. Chair Sarnoff Commissioner. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Yeah, I'm very familiar with your property, Mr. Maurice. Before I was elected, actually I was a board member of the homeowners association that abuts the property, and you were supported by that homeowners association in your application under 11000 for a building which would be much, much greater than anything you could build under T6-8 or T5. Mr. Maurice: That's correct. Commissioner Suarez: So I would -- andl agree that there are abutting properties on 37th Avenue on the north side and on the south side that are T6-8 along 37th Avenue. And I do think it's distinguishable and it was kind of an oversight that it wasn't distinguished beforehand because it does have a frontage of 37th Avenue and not a frontage of Coral Way. And the -- my intent was to downzone the properties that frontage of Coral Way, so it was kind of erroneous, but it had already gone to publication so it had to go that way. So I would move this with a modification that that property which fronts 37th Avenue and is coherent with all the other properties that front 37th Avenue that are T6-8, that that property's left T6-8. And the reason -- in addition to coherence is because I know that the neighborhoods approved a project much, much, much greater in scale not too long before. Chair Sarnoff All right. So we have a motion by -- Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Sarnoff -- Commissioner Suarez, second by Commissioner Gort. Any discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion, Madam City Attorney, it appears to be an ordinance. Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): I am unclear as to what the amendment is. Commissioner Suarez: The amendment is that it's as -is, with the exception of the north -- I'm sorry, the west -- southwest corner of Coral Way -- the property on the southwest corner on Coral Way because it fronts 37th Avenue. That will remain T6-8. Commissioner Gort: Change all except that corner. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly, pretty much. Chair Sarnoff All right, she's trying to put it in words, though. She's trying to put it in words. She's trying to figure out exactly where it is. Mr. Maurice: The southeast corner. No? Commissioner Suarez: South -- the south -- Mr. Maurice: Southwest is in the Gables. City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Commissioner Suarez: -- it depends on which way you're looking at it. Yeah. Ms. Chiaro: You need -- Commissioner Gort: Southwest -- south -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, you're right, southeast corner. Yeah. I'm looking at it backwards, that's why. Mr. Garcia: I'd like, ifI may, Commissioner, to ask the gentleman whether there is a unique identifier, whether it be a folio number or a property address that would allow us to mention -- make mention of this property and therefore exclude it from the zoning change? Mr. Maurice: I think might have the actual folio numbers here. I have the previous approval here. Commissioner Suarez: Under 11000. Mr. Maurice: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: By the way, and l just want to put something else on the record before -- this is important and significant to me because when you got that approval for 11000, the homeowners association had requested some things having to do with traffic calming and you follow through on your promise and on your commitment to the homeowners association and you never got to build your project, so -- Mr. Maurice: That's correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- that, to me, also was an indication of your good faith and your willingness to follow through even when it didn't benefit you. So thank you. Mr. Maurice: Thank you very much. Ms. Chiaro: I will read this ordinance. It's to be enacted as amended. I want to make it clear that the City Commission understands that this is the corner property on 37th Avenue. It is scribed in the -- and the address is 2209 Southwest 37th Avenue, so it's that property that will be excluded from this description. Having said that, it is an ordinance of the Mi -- was it moved? Commissioner Suarez: I moved it, yeah. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Did somebody second? I don't know if somebody second. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Commissioner Gort: I did. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chair Sarnoff It was. Commissioner Gort: I second it. City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Ms. Thompson: Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Ms. Thompson: This is your roll call on your modified second reading ordinance. Commissioner Dunn? Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chair Carollo? Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Gort: Before I vote, let me ask a question. You have one plotted -- the whole area is in one plot. Mr. Garcia: Excuse me. I don't understand the question. Unidentified Speaker: Three folio numbers, but it is one property. Commissioner Gort: I want to make sure it's plotted as one -- Unidentified Speaker: It was plotted as one. Commissioner Gort: One. Okay. Mr. Garcia: Yes. Unidentified Speaker: It was one business. Commissioner Gort: So that address covers the whole thing? The address that was given by them, it covers the whole property? Unidentified Speaker: I don't know from a legal -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Thompson: Chair. Chair Sarnoff Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: I just need to let you know that this is not -- that portion that's being stated off the mike is not being recorded and it sounds like you're asking some pretty important questions. Unidentified Speaker: I haven't been sworn in. Ms. Thompson: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this Commissioner Gort: What want to make sure is -- Ms. Thompson: -- matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay. Chair Sarnoff (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) cannot figure out, all these great minds, you cannot read an ordinance on first reading and cull out --? City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Commissioner Gort: No. This is second reading. That's why. Chair Sarnoff. This is second reading. I'm sorry. Commissioner Gort: This is second reading. Chair Sarnoff. I apologize. Commissioner Gort: Now what I wanted to do -- an address was given as the change was to take place. I want to make sure that address covers all of the lots that you have there. Henry Puig: Okay. The way I understand it, yes, the -- there is only one address. I only know one address on the property, but being that this is so case specific, we've got the actual legal description and a copy of the survey on hand. Ms. Chiaro: I'm clear that the record reflects what the -- that the Commission knows what it was doing. I just wanted to read that address so that we can modify the ordinance that include the folio numbers that's applicable. Commissioner Gort: Folio numbers, all the plots within that -- okay, fine. Chair Sarnoff. Madam City Attorney -- Commissioner Gort: Okay. Chair Sarnoff. -- I can assure you that this Commission acts with deliberance and always knows what it's doing. Commissioner Gort: I vote yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Continuing with your roll call on your modified second reading ordinance. Commissioner Suarez? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chair Sarnoff? Chair Sarnoff Yes. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted, as modified, on second reading, 5-0. Chair Sarnoff. All right. PZ.7 ORDINANCE 10-00963zt Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4. "STANDARDS AND TABLES", ARTICLE 5. "SPECIFIC TO ZONES", ARTICLE 6. "SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS", AND ARTICLE 7. "PROCEDURES AND NONCONFORMITIES", TO ESTABLISH EQUIVALENT REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FROM FORMER ZONING ORDINANCE 11000, AND City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 PLACE THEM IN THE MIAMI 21 CODE; MORE SPECIFICALLY: 1) BY MODIFYING TABLE 4 DENSITY, INTENSITY AND PARKING, ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL PARKING REGULATIONS FOR CHILDCARE IN T4, T5, T6, CIVIC INSTITUTION, CIVIC SPACE, AND D1 ZONES AND MODIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITIES IN T5, T6, AND DISTRICT(D) ZONES; 2) BY AMENDING TABLE 5. BUILDING FUNCTION: PARKING AND LOADING, ADDING CONDITIONS FOR LOADING BERTH SUBSTITUTION; 3) BY AMENDING SECTION 5.3.1 BUILDING DISPOSITION (T3), SECTION 5.3.2 BUILDING CONFIGURATION (T3), SECTION 5.4.1 BUILDING DISPOSITION (T4) AND SECTION 5.4.2 BUILDING CONFIGURATION (T4), ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, PERMANENT POOLS AND WHIRLPOOLS, TENNIS COURTS, AND SIMILAR FACILITIES, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER SIMILAR EQUIPMENT IN T3 AND T4 ZONES; 4) BY AMENDING SECTION 6.1 INTENT AND EXCLUSIONS, CLARIFYING HOW TO MEASURE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS; 5) BY MODIFYING TABLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS TO MEET THE STATE OF FLORIDA REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILDCARE FACILITIES IN T4, T5, T6, CIVIC, AND D1 ZONES; AND MODIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC AND COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITIES TO REQUIRE A WARRANT AND DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR T5 AND T6 ZONES; AND BY ADDING DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES IN THE CIVIC INSTITUTION ZONE; AND 6) BY MODIFYING SECTION 7.1.2.5 WAIVER, INCORPORATING SAID REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND LOADING BERTH SUBSTITUTION INTO THE WAIVERS LIST; CONTAININGASEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-00963zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00963zt Exhibit A. pdf 10-00963zt Exhibit B.pdf 10-00963zt Exhibit C.pdf 10-00963zt Exhibit D.pdf 10-00963zt CC Exhibit E.pdf 10-00963zt CC Synopsis of Resolutions - NEWpdf 10-00963zt CC Legislation (Version 5).pdf 10-00963zt CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with modifications* to City Commission on September 1, 2010 by a vote of 6-1. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will establish equivalent regulations and requirements from former Zoning Ordinance No. 11000 and place them in the Miami 21 Code, City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 more specifically to 1. Establish conditions and requirements for sheds, permanent pools and whirlpools, tennis courts, and similar facilities accessory to principal use, air conditioning equipment, and other similar noise producing equipment in T3 and T4 zones, and incorporating said facilities and/or equipment to the Waiver list; 2. Add conditions for loading berth substitution; 3. Establish conditions to meet the State of Florida requirements for Childcare Facilities in T4, T5, T6, C, and D1 zones; 4. Modify requirements for public and commercial storage facilities in T5, T6, and District Zones; 5. Add distance separation requirements for Assisted Living facilities in the Civic institution (CI) Zone; and 6. Clarify how to measure distance separation requirements for uses and structures. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13238 Chair Sarnoff PZ.7. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Items PZ.7 through PZ.12 are actually amendments to the Miami 21 Zoning Ordinance. These are all on second reading before you. And Dakota Hendon will make the presentation. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager): Dakota Hendon, with the Office of Zoning. I'll be as quick as possible. Chair Sarnoff That's good. Mr. Hendon: PZ.7 is a series of modifications that will establish equivalent regulations from Ordinance 11000, specifically dealing with sheds, pools, as well as some supplemental regulations for child care facilities, among other things. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion. We have a second. It is an ordinance, Madam City Attorney. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Chair Sarnoff You're going to need to reread it because you missed a whole sentence. Ms. Chiaro: I'll start again. Chair Sarnoff That's okay. All right. Commissioner Gort: I moved it. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion. We have a second. Ms. Thompson: You're ready for your roll call. City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Chair Sarnoff We are. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Chair Sarnoff We're ready for you. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Okay. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5-0. PZ.8 ORDINANCE 10-00964zt Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS BY ADDING A DEFINITION FOR SCHOOLS; AMENDING ARTICLE 4. STANDARDS AND TABLES, BY MODIFYING TABLE 4 DENSITY, INTENSITY AND PARKING TO ESTABLISH PARKING RATIOS FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES CONSISTENT WITH MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN ALL TRANSECT ZONES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-00964zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00964zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-00964zt Exhibit A. pdf 10-00964zt CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 1, 2010 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will make parking ratios for Educational Facilities (Schools) in all Transect Zones consistent with the Florida Building Code and Miami -Dade County Public School requirements. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13239 Chair Sarnoff PZ.8. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Dakota Hendon (Project Manager, Zoning): PZ.8 is modifications to parking requirements for educational facilities. Chair Sarnoff All right. Is there a motion? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Commissioner Gort, second by the Vice Chair. Public hearing. Anybody wishing in the public to be heard? Hearing none, seeing none, come back to Commission. Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Your roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5-0. PZ.9 ORDINANCE Second Reading 10-00968zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5. SPECIFIC TO ZONES, BY MODIFYING SECTION 5.5.1 BUILDING DISPOSITION (T5), AND SECTION 5.6.1 BUILDING DISPOSITION (T6), BY ALLOWING DOOR SPACING REQUIREMENTS TO BE MODIFIED BY WAIVER AND BY REMOVING PUBLIC EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR CROSS BLOCK PASSAGES; AND BY MODIFYING SECTION 7.1.2.5 WAIVER, INCORPORATING SAID REQUIREMENTS FOR DOOR SPACING INTO THE WAIVERS LIST; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-00968zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00968zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-00968zt CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 1, 2010 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will allow door -spacing requirements to be modified by process of Waiver and will remove public easement requirements when providing cross -block passages in T5 and T6 Transect Zones. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13240 Chair Sarnoff PZ.9. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager, Zoning): PZ.9 will allow a waiver to modnj, door spacing requirements and will remove public easement requirements for cross -block passages. Chair Sarnoff Is there a motion on PZ.9? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Gort. Public hearing. Anybody in the public wishing to be heard? Come back -- hearing none, seeing none, come back to Commission. Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5-0. PZ.10 ORDINANCE Second Reading 10-00969zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS, TO CHANGE THE TERM LARGE SCALE RETAIL TO LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL AND ARTICLE 6. SECTION 6.3.1, LARGE SCALE RETAIL, TO CLARIFY PROCEDURES AND MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-00969zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00969zt Exhibit A - NEW pdf 10-00696zt CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00696zt CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Commission on September 1, 2010 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will clarify the required process for large-scale commercial establishments and remove the maximum size limitation. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13241 Chair Sarnoff PZ.10. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager, Zoning): PZ.10 is to clam procedures and modin, some requirements for large-scale commercial establishments. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Commissioner Gort, second by the Vice Chair. Public hearing. Anybody in the public wishing to be heard? Hearing none, seeing none, come back to Commission. Madam City Attorney, it's an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5-0. Chair Sarnoff Big -box business. Gotcha. PZ.11 ORDINANCE Second Reading 10-00970zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5. SPECIFIC TO ZONES, MORE SPECIFICALLY BY MODIFYING SECTION 5.4 GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONES (T4), SECTION 5.5 URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONES (T5) AND SECTION 5.6 URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONES (T6) TO CLARIFY RULES FOR EXTENSIONS ABOVE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ARTICLE 3. GENERAL TO ZONES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-00970zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-00970zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-00970zt CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 15, 2010 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will establish limits and procedures for extensions above maximum height for stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment enclosures and ornamental features to be consistent with Article 3, Section 3.5 "Measurement of Height". Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13242 Chair Sarnoff PZ.11. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager, Zoning): PZ.11 is to clam rules for extensions above maximum height to be generally consistent with Article III. Chair Sarnoff All right. Is there a motion? Vice Chair Carollo: Move. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Sarnoff Motion by the Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Dunn. Public hearing. Anybody in the public wishing to be heard, come up and state. Hearing none, seeing none, come back to Commission. Madam City Attorney, it's an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5-0. PZ.12 ORDINANCE Second Reading 10-00971 zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6. SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, BY MODIFYING SECTION 6.5.1.5 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, ADDING REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS AND PAINTED WALL SIGNS; SECTION 6.5.2.5 ESTABLISHING SIGN REGULATIONS FOR TRANSECT ZONES CI -HD AND D3; AND SECTION 6.5.3 BY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR SIGNS OVER FIFTY (50) FEET ABOVE GRADE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 10-00971zt Reso.pdf 10-00971zt CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 10-00971zt CC 12-16-10 SR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 15, 2010 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will add requirements and limitations for freestanding signs, painted signs, establish regulations for signs in the CI -HD and D3 Transect Zones, and require a Warrant for signs over fifty feet above grade. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort 13243 Chair Sarnoff PZ.12. Dakota Hendon (Project Manager, Zoning): PZ.12 is a series of changes to the sign regulations. There is one correction, if you see on the bottom of the screen, a minor correction in wording. It really doesn't change any of the intent, but we think it's a little bit clearer of a sentence. It reads as more specifically regulated in each transect zone per Section 5 -- 6.5.2. Chair Sarnoff That's a five-day rule if I've ever seen one. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Mr. Hendon: It -- Chair Sarnoff Motion -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Sarnoff -- by Commiss -- Mr. Hendon: -- it's really just a clearer sentence. Chair Sarnoff -- Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Hurry. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Commissioner Gort: Hurry, hurry. Chair Sarnoff Second by -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Chair Sarnoff -- Commissioner Suarez. It's a public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard from the public, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, come back to the Commission. Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Clarification, please. Make sure that we're showing the second reading ordinance as modified with the change that was made on the record. Chair Sarnoff That's correct. Ms. Thompson: Correct? Thank you. Your roll call on your modified second reading ordinance. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been adopted, as modified, on second reading, 5-0. Commissioner Suarez: All right. Commissioner Gort: That's it. PZ.13 ORDINANCE First Reading 10-01359Iu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO §163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 150 NORTHEAST 42ND STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-013591u Land Use Map.pdf 10-013591u Land Use Map (Proposed).pdf 10-013591u Aerial Map.pdf 10-013591u ExhibitA.pdf 10-013591u CC Analysis. pdf 10-013591u PZAB Reso.pdf 10-013591u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-013591u CC 12-16-10 FR Fact Sheet. pdf 10-013591u-Submittal-Photographs. pdf 10-013591u-Submittal -Petitions of Support. pdf 10-013591u-Submittal-Petitions to Deny the Application. pdf LOCATION: Approximately 150 NE 42nd Street [Commissioner Richard P. Dunn - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 1, 2010 by a vote of 9-0. See companion File ID 10-01359zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Chair Sarnoff PZ.13. Mr. Garcia, you're recognized for the record. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Thank you, sir. PZ.13 andPZ.14 are companion items. The City is the applicant. PZ.13 is a land use change -- a proposal for a land use change. The address is 150 Northeast 42nd Street, and this is before you in first reading. PZ.14 is a proposal to rezone properties located at the north side of 41 st Street between North Miami Avenue to the west and Northeast 2ndAvenue to the east. The proposed changes as pertains to the land use change would take the property -- the subject property from medium density -- medium family residential to medium density restricted commercial, and the proposed zoning change would take the properties mentioned from the present zoning of T3-O or duplex residential to T4-O. What I'd like to show you briefly by way of presentation is a few images of the area so you may get a feel for the -- both the reason for this application and the analysis that we've conducted. You see here in this image outlined in yellow the area subject to the zoning change. Andl will, at the end of this brief presentation, get also to the parcel that is encumbered by the land use change. And you see there how under the previous zoning ordinance, this whole area was actually, including the parcels under today's application, were actually zoned SD-8, which made them a part of the Design District just to the south. And in the change from zoning ordinance 11000 to Miami 21, these areas were excluded from the Design District zoning pattern, and were basically adhered to the low density residential area to the north, which happens to be the Buena Vista East historic district. You'll see that, I believe, in the next slide. Right. And so this is the area immediately to the north. This is the Buena Vista East historic district, and you can notice that along the south boundary there is a jag. The properties that are under today's application are actually just south of that southern border of the Buena Vista East historic district. Again, the zoning in question, the area in question. I'm sorry; if you can go back to the previous slide, I'd like to make note of the fact that the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board made a recommendation of denial for the land use change application and they made a recommendation of denial also for the zoning change proposal. However, they singled out the three properties that you see framed there in orange, and those are the properties that front North Miami Avenue, and they recommended that the change to T4-O, the zoning change to T4-O be approved there. That's the PZAB's (Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board's) recommendation. The Planning Department, of course, recommends approval of all the items before you as part of this proposal. That's an (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the area in question. And we'll go through these photos very quickly, but I'd like to show you first the properties along the north side of 41st Street and show you their present state. Andl will tell you by way of brief introduction that we feel the present designation actually puts 41 st Street in peril of never developing properly. The reason for that is this. Forty -First Street to the south, the properties to the south are actually T5-O, which is a mixed -use medium density zoning designation and would allow commercial uses. However, to the north of 41 st Street, the properties facing it to the north are actually all zoned for only low -density residential development. You'll see that many of these properties are actually either vacant at present or occupied by surface parking lots, and that's simply an interim use. That's not sustainable long term. And in order to obtain any significant and worthwhile and sustainable redevelopment of this area, you would have to reconcile the bipolar commercial City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 residential character of the street right now. Planning wise, residential tends not to want to be in front of commercial and commercial tends not to want to be in front of residential. The two uses are in friction, and so we seek to reconcile that in this particular instance by introducing a transitional zoning designation, which is T4-O. Please note that T4-O is one notch up from the T3-O that presently exists there. We couldn't go up any less than to T4-O, and so that is why we are proposing this particular change. With that, by way of brief introduction, I'll take you quickly along 41 st Street and you'll note that this is a vacant lot. This happens to be a building built to what would presently be the highest and best use under T4-O. And the issue to note here is that this building is approximately 53 feet in height, andl will make mention throughout the presentation of the fact that we believe -- we, as staff believe that 53 feet of height is arguably too high a height for a zoning designation immediately abutting low- density residential. And so we are going to propose to you that a change should be made citywide to the T4 designation so that the height will be reduced, and we'll show you why in a moment. But this building in particular, you will likely hear from some of the neighborhood stakeholders, is probably a good example of why 53 feet would not work as part of a T4-O designation. This happens to be the sole building along the north end -- the north side of 41 st Street, which is developed pursuant to the T3-O designation that exists there presently, so this is a low -density duplex residential property. And you will continue -- if you can continue down now in terms of the photographs, you'll see that you have mostly surface parking lots. And this would be a medium density -- rather, not medium density, but sort of that interim density that T4 provides for residential properties, exclusively residential, but you could not develop this building under the present zoning, which is T3-O, because the density would not allow it. More surface parking lots, duplex residential. And then this parcel for the remainder of the block is occupied presently by a school in a community -gathering facility, which is legally nonconforming. It was probably developed pursuant to the former SD-8 zoning designation and its predecessors but has since then been rezoned and been rendered nonconforming. And now if we can go quickly. I'm going to show you just a few images of 42nd Street, which is the street parallel to 41st Street to the north. And you'll see that 42nd Street is a very stable, a well canopied, low -density residential street with the exception, of course, of the parcel in question right now, which is occupied by the school and the community assembly center. Again, the character of these buildings is duplex residential, and you'll see that it is, once again, well canopied and very much stable and residential in character. This is now part of the Buena Vista East historic district, and these are the properties that front 41 st Street and these are the properties that were recommended for approval for the rezoning by the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board. Very quickly through the next set of slides. The properties along the south end of 41 st Street, the south side of 41 st Street, and you'll see that many of these would be subject to redevelopment. There is interest in redevelopment, but there is great fear on the part of the development community that these would be commercial properties facing residential and that would be problematic for them and for their investors. So again, the image I want to leave you with and the concern that we have in the Planning Department is that but for a rezoning that corrects what we perceive as an anomaly of this commercial fronting residential condition, there would not likely be any significant redevelopment of the street, and it would continue to function essentially as a demilitarized zone, if you will. You may hear that it serves well as a buffer against further commercial intrusion by the low -density residential neighbors, and with -- I'm happy to acknowledge that that is in fact the case. That is true. It is not a buffer that actually works well. It is not a positive buffer. It is a negative buffer. It is a deterrent buffer. We believe that T4 provides us the opportunity to actually have 41 st Street function as a positive buffer and it would be developed with commercial uses that would be neighborhood oriented in scale and with a height of -- a height maximum of 40 feet, we think that the transition would be effectively accomplished between the five stories in T5-O and the three stories -- or rather the two stories in duplex residential. Chair Sarnofff. I'm a little bit lost 'cause you -- Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Chair Sarnofff. -- I thought were showing the museum. I don't remember the name of the museum. I know it's privately held. Mr. Garcia: Yes. Chair Sarnofff. What's the museum, the name of it? Mr. Garcia: I don't recall at present. Chair Sarnofff. All right. Mr. Garcia: I apologize. Chair Sarnofff. And that museum, you said, was 53 feet. Mr. Garcia: That is correct. And what we're proposing to you today as part of this -- well, not as part of this application because this application stands on its own, but what we are recognizing that the height of 53 feet is entirely too high for the T4 designation, and we would be proposing that the height of T4 be changed citywide to become a maximum of 40 feet; still three stories, which is all the way along what the height was. Three stories, but only 40 feet. And the logic for that, Mr. Chair, is that we would have -- instead of a 25 foot -high ground level commercial story and two subsequent 14 foot -high residential or office stories, we would have a 15 foot -high ground level commercial and then two subsequent stories of at most 12 feet, which are sufficient to accommodate nice residential but also nice office occupancies. The math -- before I'm asked the question -- would yield a 39 foot height; the 40 feet is a rounding off of that figure of 39 feet. Chair Sarnofff. Okay. Mr. Garcia: And will show you -- Chair Sarnofff. But this is not being proposed -- Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Chair Sarnofff. -- today, right? You're not -- Mr. Garcia: We are proposing -- we anticipate that you will hear today from some of the neighbors, if not all of the neighbors, that the height of 53 feet is of great concern. We share that concern, and we are proposing that this item be passed today in its present shape. But because it would have to come back to you for a second reading, we propose that the zoning ordinance be amended to reduce the height of T4 to 40 feet and then on second reading that item would have caught up and the effective change would be to a 40-foot height. Chair Sarnofff. All right. Mr. Garcia: There's one more image that I want to show you because that will also help dispel some confusion. If we can go all the way to the last image on the presentation, which is this one. If you'll note, please, this is the land use map, and what you will see here in a moment is that there is a parcel, a larger parcel than the rest, which is occupied by a school and a community assembly facility. You may not see it well enough because the colors don't contrast quite well, but if you can in your monitors look at the area within the white frame, that is the area that is subject to the land use change we are proposing today, not the remainder of the parcel, as I think was concerning some, but just that one area. And the reason for that is so as to bring further into compliance the existing nonconforming use. The land use designation there would continue City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 to be medium density, but it would now allow for the inclusion of some neighborhood -scaled commercial uses along those that are actually fronting on Northeast 2ndAvenue and 41 st Street. And the area that is not included is the area that you see there I believe framed in yellow, although it's quite hard to discern. I apologize for that. But I wanted to make that point for the record because I've received that question from a number of concerned nearby property owners. And that's all have by way of presentation. I will happily answer any questions you may have. Chair Sarnofff. All right. Let me open it up to a public hearing. Is this --? Are your comments pertaining to PZ.13 as well as 14? Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir, both. PZ.13 being the land use change andPZ.14 being the zoning change. Chair Sarnofff. The comments are pertaining to PZ.13 and 14? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): That is correct. That's how we logged them in. Chair Sarnofff. All right. Let me open a public hearing. Anybody wishing to hear or speak on PZ.13 or PZ. 14? Ms. Garcia -Toledo, you're recognized for the record. Vicky Garcia -Toledo: Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, with offices at 1450 BrickellAvenue. Andl am before you today on behalf of Family Christian Association ofAmerica, FCAA, as we get talking on these issues. And it is that association that operates the school that you have been hearing about during Mr. Garcia's presentation. First and foremost, let me address the application. This is a City ofMiami application, andl am appearing on behalf of my client because the property owned by my clients is directly affected by this application. We are here to fully support the City's application. Mr. Garcia, as not only your director of Planning, but as an architect and planner, has given you a presentation which is substantial competent evidence as required by law, and so is the documentation and the analysis that have been -- and the findings from your staff on behalf of this application, the issue of creating a transition zoning between the T5 and the T3, which usually create friction, is exactly what your Miami 21 goal was. The policy behind this, if you remember, this property was originally an SD-8 area of the Design District, which allowed a very substantial unlimited height on this property, as well as mixed use. It was rezoned or downzoned by Miami 21 to a T3, clearly an error. You don't go from the maximum to the minimum. And so the ideal in the policy that the Design District is a economic engine for our community that creates business and creates jobs is essential, and just because SDA (Special District Area?) in concept went away, the policy of what you have been doing and your predecessors before you for the last 50 years in creating a viable Design District with jobs for the community should not be lost in the translation. But more importantly, let me address the practical outcome. The Family Christian Association ofAmerica has been on this site since 1991, and they finished the purchase of the property in '93. They run a community -based service center which starts every morning by servicing 140 children in the Head Start program. There are offices to run the business of the association. There are offices to run the business of the Head Start program. There are offices to do job training, and all of these activities have become nonconforming as a result of what occurred when this property was brought to T3. In the case of a fire, an act of God, a hurricane, many of these uses would not be able to be rebuilt and reincorporated and operated at this site . So taking this property to T4 has a very practical and reasonable effect that benefits the community, and it is that it allows the uses that are there now to be able to continue in case of an act of God. It also allows a community organization to be able to leverage its property consistent with an asset value that is necessary, which would also disappear under the T3 because the uses that are there and have been there since 1991 would not necessarily be able to support any type of collateral leveraging for financial purposes if this organization so needed it. So clearly, what your staff is doing is not only creating what Miami 21 asked for, which was -- the community asked for, which was transitional zoning, but it's also allowing a active City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 participant of our community to be able to continue to function the way it has and to continue to help and assist the community. You will hear more later from members of the organization. But I would ask you to please support the application and follow the recommendation of your staff. And if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. You're recognized for the record. Wendy Stephen: My name is Wendy Stephen. I live at 101 Northeast 43rd Street, in the Buena Vista East historic district. I'm not the most fabulously technical. I apologize. Okay, we should be loading up. There it is. Perfect. I love it when it works. All right, so just a little background. I'm the cochair of the Buena Vista East Neighborhood Association's Miami 21 committee. So we were really, really engaged throughout this whole process. We started in 2005 actually because one of our neighbors actually was on the DPZ (Duany Plater-Zyberk) planning team and she told us about Miami 21 and she told us what was coming. And she said, you know, this is really our best chance to correct all these battles we're having with high-rises in the Design District so close to the neighborhood, so we had been through the wringer in terms of fighting high-rises up against the neighborhood ranging from 200 to 430 feet tall in this very chamber and even in the court system we were fighting. So it was taking a lot of our time and was really stressful, and so the Miami 21 process was just held out to us by the Planning Department and the Mayor and everybody as being our solution. So they really invited our public participation and we fully engaged. So we were actually at the kickoff meeting with four people with talking points and every committee, and we were very, very committed throughout that whole process. Multiple articles in the Miami Herald showing our opinion, letters. We worked very closely with our then Commissioner, Commissioner Spence -Jones, and again, throughout the public process, we were invited to participate and we did, with multiple documented letters, et cetera, posted on the Miami 21 Web site. We were invited to public participation workshops, invitation only workshops. So we were very, very active because we really felt that it was an opportunity for us to correct some historical problems and protect the historic neighborhood going forward. So I show you this is the historic designation here, and this is a little excerpt from the 1987 historic designation report that mentions that one of the reasons we were eligible for designation was that the residential areas had not been significantly impacted by the nearby Design District. So that was one of the things that protected us is that we hadn't been encroached upon. And just a note there that the Buena Vista East Association had endorsed the designation as historic as a means of preserving stability for the neighborhood, so we've been very involved since -- even since then. So in terms of the zoning area -- I'll indicate it, but that's the 500 foot in red. That circle is the 500-foot notification zone. So we're a tiny, little neighborhood. And you can see that the City's own sort of sense of where the impact might be felt is about 500 feet. It takes up about a third of our neighborhood. So it's a small neighborhood, and when we took on that zoning designa -- or that designation as a historic district, we have a lot of limitations placed on us. You know, we can't build the fences as high as we want it. We can't hide our house behind a hedge. We have to paint it appropriate and tasteful colors. You know, there's a lot of extra stuff we go through and before the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board if we want to change our windows. So we accepted that willingly, and the idea would be that we would be protected as a result. In the blue, you see existing T4-I„ so we have a commercial strip that's been there historically, and there's a lot of thriving businesses in that area right now that does serve the neighborhood and elsewhere. Wonderful businesses like the Buena Vista Deli, Buena Vista Bistro, Mandolin, great businesses. We're already starting to feel some of the impacts from the growth of these businesses. As much as we love them, we're already dealing with some of the - - sort of you know, the things that happen when businesses are up against homes. So that's one thing that we're definitely feeling already in terms of parking. So the existing zoning, again, is not a mistake. It is something we worked diligently and hard for. Initially -- and if you even look on the Miami 21 Web site now, under T4 they show some renderings. Those renderings are clearly regular three-story buildings. If you look at the size of the car and the size of the person in there, they're, you know, about a 35-foot building, and that was always what was proposed to - - at the initial, you know, idea of that's what T4 should have been. Somewhere along the line T4 City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 got supersized. The actual specs came out in about 2007, mid-2007, and when we saw what was actually allowable, it was that 53 feet; 25, 14, 14, still defined as three stories, but way bigger than we could stomach. So that was when we worked with our Commissioner very closely and publicly to have it knocked back down to give us that protection from basically the massing. That was really the concern. Even with a 20-foot setback, this is what this looks like from 42nd Street within the Design District -- I mean, within the historic district. So you can see the people in the art gallery, which is the art space building -- I think it's the De La Cruz Collection, yeah, beautiful art collection, but the people who are in that art -- that building are looking down into these people's backyards at their laundry hanging out. They have no privacy at all, and they can actually walk on a balcony and those lights at the top are actually cantilevered toward the neighborhood, so it's like big floodlights shining out into the neighborhood, so we've had problems with that. So that gives you a bit of an idea. Here's a scale model and Annette is going to walk this around just so you can see it, but this is a photo. And the house -- the little house on the right there is hers. And it's -- she's an architect and she's made the model. The little -- the even smaller one to the left is the little green house you saw in the previous image, that image. A number of these houses have been put on the market since the art space building was sold -- I mean since constructed. We've lost a few very nice neighbors to this process so it was really disappointing. And this essentially is the envelope, including a 20-foot setback, of what would be allowable just on that half of that horseshoe -shaped zoning. This is facing south because if we faced it north, you wouldn't see the buildings at all from the neighborhood. We have two additional lots -- IfI may have a few more moments since I'm representing about 160 people who signed a petition. We have two problem lots here specifically that have procedural questions associated with them. The first is on the left in the light blue. That's 4141 North Miami Avenue. If you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) back to that very first slide, you'll see that that lot is actually within the historic district. So my question is how do you rezone a lot in a historic district without any HEP Board review? To me that seems like a mistake. I'm just not sure how that's possible. I don't know whether that's -- you know, that that can happen, so that's a question we have. And the other has to do with this lot that -- in the dark blue to the far right. And the Planning director did address the question -- yes, he says that he is zoning only three quarters of that lot -- only three quarters of the lot is affected in that. This lot, which is pending sale, which I think is very important information, according to the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) system and the iMap system used by the realtors, this lot is pending sale, so whatever -- all the wonderful things that have been done in the community in terms of -- for the children, et cetera -- and we see the kids walking there and, you know, they're part of our Halloween things and everything. We've been thrilled to have them for many years. I've never heard a single complaint about the school in the years that I've lived there, which is 16 years. But those services are gone. So the issue is Chair Sarnoff. You're saying the FCAA building is for sale or is pending a sale? Ms. Stephen: Yeah. It's pending sale. I have printouts from MLS and from iMap. And at the bottom of the listing, it says lots of room to develop. So our Commissioner was actually very, very careful at the time of recommending the T3 zoning to be sure that the existing use was grandfathered in and it was. So that was why the previous speaker was referring to an act of God because unless there's an act of God, they can continue doing exactly what they're doing. But the issue is that the property is for sale, and the sale price went up $750, 000 in July. So that's right about the time it would seem that this item was being processed. So our concern is what happens next. Now ifI was purchasing this property and it was three-quarters zoned one zoning and a quarter zoned the other, I would rapidly come forward and have that last quarter fixed, and they would have every reason -- every justification for asking for that because that's kind of odd. So the issue, if that were to go through, then these are all the residential properties where people are currently living that are directly affected either -- not affected; abutting or adjacent to the rezone site. So just the historical background of this street, you'll notice there's no storefronts on this street. It was actually part of the original Biltmore subdivision -- historic subdivision. It was a residential street, and what happened was during the very speculative City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 period, you know, the boom we just experienced, a lot of those residential properties were knocked down. You saw a lot of empty spaces, a lot of parking lots. That was one scheme after another, high buildings, and they all fell apart, nothing happened. So, yeah, I mean, now it doesn't look so lovely. It's true the pedestrian experience could be better, but the fact is our concern is for the people who live there, not the people who walk there. You know, we have a long-term investment there as well, and you know, we have some people here this evening, but we did get 167 signatures since December 1 opposing this, and we can turn those in to the Court -- to the Clerk, andl have a copy of my presentation as well. If there are any questions, I'm happy to -- I am speaking on behalf of the association, so I can answer questions if there are. Chair Sarnoff. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Yes, ma'am. Eveline Pierre: Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Eveline Pierre. I'm the executive director of the Haitian Heritage Museum. Our location is on 4141 Northeast 2nd Avenue. I am in support of the T4 zoning. Any zoning that does not allow growth would be hindrance to the providing of the services to the community. And the community growth of the community, we are asking that you please support T4 because we've been in the neighborhood for four years. First of all, North Miami Avenue on 41 st Street, and we moved to 41 st Northeast 2ndAvenue, and we've seen a substantial growth. I know all of you guys spoke about the Art Basel. Again, this was the neighborhood that I grew up in back in the day when my family came from Haiti, and we moved up to the Miami Shores area. But this area, we served the community of the Haitian children and others that come to the museum and we think that it's very important to continue the growth that we need to have the T4 approved. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Serge Rodriguez: Good afternoon, Honorable Chair and County [sic] Commissioners. My name is Serge Rodriguez. I'm the director of operation at Haitian Heritage Museum, and as Eveline mentioned, we've been in the area for about four years now providing educational programming to the area, to the youth in the area and the local community. We're supporting T4 because of the broader impacts to the community revitalization. Over the past four years, we've experienced substantial growth in our capacity to serve the community and that's because of a lot of reasons. Obviously, one, because the community supports us, but one of the key factors is location. You know, we had the opportunity and are fortunate to be in a very thriving business community that's got a great synergy with the area. In terms of T4, we think that that can contribute to our future growth. As far as the rest of the community's concerned -- you know, I've grown up in this community myself. I graduated from Archbishop Curly High. I've lived at 54th Street in the Sabal Palm. And now we're providing community services through our organization to the local community. We think that the T4 would put us in an economically viable position to continue to serve our community in the future. So we're asking you to please support T4 because it's going to plant a seed for our future. Little Haiti has gone through a lot of changes. I've seen the 2ndAvenue corridor change over the last 30 years that I've participated in this community. There's a lot of growth that's happening on the north end along the 2ndAvenue strip, and the T4 would put the 41 st Street area in a position to contribute to that growth in the future. Currently, there's an anchor at the north end with the Little Haiti Cultural Center and the Design District is a viable economic engine on the south end. I think that the 41 st Street zoning change to a T4 would continue to help sustain the future growth of that area and help organizations like ours -- we're a nonprofit organization -- put a -- Oh, my time's up. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez: Please support T4. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Appreciate it. Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 David Coviello: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is David Coviello, with law offices at 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, in Miami. I'm here this evening on behalf of the owner of the property highlighted in yellow on the first page of the handout. The address is 4111 North Miami Avenue. Andl think it's unfortunate that all these properties are clumped together for this rezoning because I think, really, this property deserves to be looked at separately. It really is -- it has some unique circumstances. If you look at the second page of the handout, the property is obviously located at a main intersection and located on North Miami Avenue, but it's completely surrounded by commercial uses. Now when my client bought the property in 2009, it was zoned to permit commercial use. Once Miami 21 went into effect, the property can no longer be used for any commercial uses. And as you can see in the photos, it's simply not feasible for any residential use. The client purchased the property to refurbish this building, which is currently vacant. And without this rezoning, the building is going to stay as is and will not be able to be used. So we ask you that if you're going to deny the rezoning along 41 st Street, that you bifurcate the ordinance, as did the PZAB, and approve the rezonings along North Miami Avenue. Thank you for your time. Chair Sarnoff. Thank you. Yes, sir. Schiller Jerome: My name is Schiller Jerome. My address is 24 Northeast 47th Street. I currently serve as the treasurer of Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association. And I'm here to oppose the current PZ.13 and 14. The reason is, Commissioner, we have an issue of due process and fairness. Three -- two years ago, we came in front of this board. We argued about Miami 21 with the current Chairman and the past Commissioner Regalado, who voted against Miami 21 because he stated that there wasn't enough input. Now here we are again arguing the same issue. There is issue of due process here. We went through this process a year ago and now we're going back again because of someone's economic gains by the changes. I've been living in Buena Vista for seven years. Not only do I live in Buena Vista, I own a company that provides services to 800 kids within the City ofMiami area. I'm also a property owner in Little Haiti. This change does not benefit the change in which we hear about. This is strictly economics from a seller to a buyer. As a community, we don't want it. As a community, we advocated for it. And the fact that it's here today after Planning and Zoning Board denied it -- again, Planning and Zoning Board are people that are appointed by you guys, professionals, to make a decision. They denied it. So as a Commissioner, if you respect your Planning and Zoning Board, you will also will respect their decision and also deny this issue. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff. Thank you. Yes, sir. Richard Chisolm: Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Richard Chisolm. I'm the president and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Family Christian Association, the school that is presently located at 150 Northeast 42nd Street. And on behalf of my board and my staff we would like to go on record as being in favor of the proposition and we support it wholeheartedly. And as it has been mentioned, we've been in that location for nearly 20 years, and it's not that we are just moving into the neighborhood trying to disrupt the order. We have been there for some time and we have over 30 employees presently working at that site and we're serving over 150 children there. The -- our ability to operate effectively and efficiently is being hindered by the restrictions that are being placed on our land use at this present time. It has been said that we are currently nonconforming in our present status, which is also affecting our ability to raise operating capital to continue our operations, so this petition will help the organization directly and indirectly. And on behalf of over 300 families and staff workers, we would like to go on record again as saying that we would support your efforts and to getting this petition passed. Chair Sarnoff. Mr. Chisolm, is your place for sale? City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Mr. Chisolm: We have investigated the value of the property because of the zoning changes to see what the property would sell at. And we have had potential buyers to give us their quotes so that we'll know what economic loss and hardships that we 're being placed under by this new zoning change. Chair Sarnofff. And is your business or is your facility pending a sale? Mr. Chisolm: That's a possibility, depending upon the results of the -- our findings, whether or not we can continue to operate. You know, we don't know what the future holds for us, but we are looking at all the opportunities and we want it to remain conforming on that particular piece of property. Right now we are nonconforming and it is a very hardship situation for us. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Mr. Chisolm: But there will be other discussions on that with our realtor who will be coming up. Safiyah Ali: Hello. My name is Safiyah Ali. Good evening. I -- Chair Sarnofff. Could you state your name again. Ms. S. Ali: Safiyah Ali. And I'm the realtor who actually put the property on the market. And the reason why I put the property on the market is to test -- to see what damages was done, the monetary damages that was done. When we first heard about our property being changed to a T3 from an SD-8 when it should have had -- I was trying to get a T5 and I settled -- I was like, okay, let's try to get a T4. I wanted to see what monetary damages happened, so I put it on the market. I put some wording in it because you want to see what kind of results you get. And for sure, it was definitely some changes and with people calling telling me, look, you're not going to get the money that you want. I even put it up higher. And so I left it at a pending sale. I'll go and put a temporary there -- a T there for temporarily off the market or even put a canceled sale, but I did that. I'm responsible for that, and that was solely so we can see the value that was lost to our property, monetary value. Chair Sarnofff. So I understand you correctly, Ms. Ali, you have a pending sale? Ms. S. Ali: Yes. Chair Sarnofff. And you -- Ms. S. Ali: I'm going to remove -- Chair Sarnofff. -- had a -- did you have a --? Ms. S. Ali: -- the pending sale and I'm going to put up cancel. Chair Sarnofff. Okay. Well, I'm -- Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnofff. Yes, sir. Commissioner Dunn: I know where you're at. Can I? Chair Sarnofff. Go ahead. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. So you're saying depending on the outcome of the decision that this City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 --? That's what you're saying? Ms. Ali: No. What I'm saying is -- Commissioner Dunn: I'm just trying to get a clarification. Ms. Ali: Okay. Commissioner Dunn: That's all. Ms. Ali: Okay. The -- I found the findings already and what took place, andl simply forgot to take it off a pending sale. I should have put it on a temporarily off the market, a T, or a canceled sale. That's what I should have done. Commissioner Dunn: But let me -- maybe I'm not asking the question correctly. Ms. Ali: Not based upon the findings that we find here. Irregardless [sic]. Commissioner Dunn: What is the intent of the FCAA? Ms. Ali: The intent is to find out the monetary damages done by the change of the zoning. Commissioner Dunn: So you intend to stay there? Ms. Ali: Yes. Commissioner Dunn: Your desire is to remain there? Ms. Ali: As far as I know, yes. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Ms. Ali: Thank you. Chair Sarnofff. Okay. Can I ask you a question, one more? Because you had mentioned the T5, that you wanted a T5. Ms. Ali: I -- when I found out about our zoning -- I found out back in May right after it happened. And someone called me and said your property is affected. And I said that's not possible. And when I double-checked, it was changed, andl immediately started calling, making phone calls. Chair Sarnofff. But you wanted a T5? Ms. Ali: The reason why -- 'cause our south property that shares our property, they actually literally use our property; they're a T5. Chair Sarnofff. Okay. My question to you is you wanted a T5? Ms. Ali: I wanted the T5. Chair Sarnofff. Okay. Now, you heard the -- you heard Mr. Garcia say that he was recommending a T4, but a new brand of T4 that is 39 feet? Ms. Ali: Yes. City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Chair Sarnofff. Are you guys accepting of that? Ms. Ali: Yes. That's our compromise, and we are willing to accept that. And we are hoping that our opposition accept that too 'cause we're willing to tolerate and coexist with a compromise and we hope they will too. Chair Sarnofff. And you speak on behalf of your principal as well? Ms. Ali: Yes, I do. Chair Sarnofff. Okay. Thank you. Joseph C. Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Joseph Johnson, chairman of the board ofFCAA, andl want to thank you for this time. Andl stand here in support of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that was recommended by your staff as a compromise to the solution. Andl realize that this is a very difficult, difficult task, having worked on zoning boards in the past and having been actively involved and know the decisions that go into balancing property between residents and business and realizing that if a city is going to survive and going to be creative in bringing industry and business -- economic in too, sometimes the Zoning Board have to make some very difficult and critical decisions. Andl realize that I've had to defer them up to the City Commissions and when I had to do that, realizing that you are the ones who are elected by the people, elected and not the board, and as you make this decision, I realize it's a very difficult decision andl urge you to go along with your City staff in doing a T4. I want to thank you for the time. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Riley. Terrance Riley: Commissioner, Terry Riley, 168 Northeast 43rd. I walk to work every day. I'm lucky enough. I go from 43rd Street to 39th. And if I've got enough time, I walk up to 46th, where there's an excellent new deli in our neighborhood. Every one of those blocks, from 46th to 39th, since the eight years I've been in the district, has improved. Some remarkably, some barely, but every single one of those streets has improved, with the exception of 41 st Street. And the improvements came because private citizens, homeowners, invested money in their own houses, bond money from the City was used to do curbs, streets, lighting, et cetera. The only street that is not improved andl would say is worse is 41 st Street. And the reason is because it's neither a fish nor fowl. It's not really a commercial street. It's not really a residential street. When I built my house, I looked at that street and decidedl didn't want to be there for precisely that reason. I think if the status quo's maintained, that street will remain a border or a -- almost a cut in the neighborhood between the low-rise commercial and the residential area. So I think I'm in -- not in agreement with most of my friends and neighbors, although I think we all have the same goal. One thingl do agree with my neighbors is -- andl can't quite understand why if the proposed three-story height limit were to be in effect, why you could build 53 feet. Fifty-three feet does not comport with three stories, so I'm happy to hear that there's discussion about if the three stories -- if it's approved for commercial, that it be lowered to standard commercial heights. The fact is the De La Cruz Collection is an art building. I think the ceilings in there are 18 feet, and you wind up with a three-story building that's dwarfing the neighbors to the north, andl think that's unfortunate. So I'm happy to hear that there's some discussion of a compromise, but I just would go on record saying don't think 41 st Street will ever improve unless it becomes either a commercial street or a residential street. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Mr. Riley: Thank you. Faheem Muhammad Ali: Good evening. How are you? My name is Faheem Muhammad Ali. City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 And I'm coming to you as a product ofFCAA and also right now as a mentor. I can remember back in 1985, when they was just in a small classroom at Crestview Elementary, which is right round the corner from where I was raised. I wasn't a part of it, but because I played andl grew up in the neighborhood, I ate lunch there, they brought me in. Field trips, I wound up going on field trips with them, whether it be to the pool or things like that, as long as I got permission. This is where it started. Now from there, we've come to a school to a point where it started with 20 kids, 25 kids; now you've got 140 kids. Not only that, just the programs that go on at the school -- Eddie has about 600 kids that are in basketball programs. In this situation -- my father passed away in '84. Sometimes people don't have male role models. This is where that comes into play. Why put a cap on something when it's forced to grow. I came through the situation now -- right now I give back. I do fundraisers with the bowling alley. We're actually doing fundraisers with this right here. All I'm asking you is to say -- is that don't put a cap on it. Let us grow. Let us grow 'cause without this, you got kids that never tied a tie before. They learn it at the FCAA. You got kids that never gone fishing before. They coming to FCAA, we go on fishing trips. This is what it's for. It's for the community. And we're not just trying to sit back and say we're trying to build this. What we're trying to say is that we want to grow just like everybody else want to grow. So I ask you to go ahead and if we can, rezone this as a T4. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Ali: Thank you. Carlos Carrillo: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Carlos Carrillo. I am a homeowner at 200 Northeast 44th Street, and I'm here before you as the president of the Brentwood Neighborhood Association. Brentwood lies at the very eastern edge of Buena Vista. We are -- our southern boundary is actually 42nd Street, going up to 52nd. We also have Curley High School, which was mentioned here, as part of our association. We ask for you to vote against this proposition by the Zoning Board, specifically in my neighborhood, being two streets away. Right now the big problem is infrastructure. More commercial buildings and people working in this neighborhood is going to put more of a strain on the neighborhoods surrounding this street. As it is right now, it's not uncommon for people in my neighborhood to walk out of their homes and find people parking on our swale and walking to work in the Design District. In the evenings, the valet services for the Design District park their cars along 43rd Street. We fought with these valet services, and City ofMiami parking lent us a big hand in marking no parking along Northeast 2ndAvenue, between 43rd and 44th Street, because the valets again were parking their cars there. Now we have customers of businesses parking their cars in our neighborhood. Infrastructure has to be addressed before any increase in zoning can be taken a look at seriously without affecting the residents. Another issue, very quickly, Mr. Riley pointed out the businesses along Northeast 2ndAvenue that have succeeded. These are all in one-story buildings, so I don't see any reason why a three-story is necessary for the further development of the Design District. Thank you for your time. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Ameena Ali: Good evening. I'm Ameena Ali. I'm coming asking that you pass this -- I'm coming actually in favor ofFCAA. I am a product of the FCAA, but I'm coming also because there's many disadvantaged youths who will be a part of this program who will not get the opportunity to experience many different programs, in particular the different business incubator programs. With the youth leadership program the FCAA has in place right now, it allows disadvantaged youths to have the ability to hone their skills, be trained by mentors, and also to take what they learn and actually bring it into fruition. You have young adults who may not -- who have a lot of competition, but if they don't start somewhere, you know, they may never, you know, realize their dreams. The FCAA provides that for them, in particular with this building. Because of the rezoning of this building, it will allow us to grow, to expand, and if we're -- a cap is put on it, it really puts us in harm's way for a lot of future endeavors with the different leadership programs, in particular the -- in particular, a problem that we're dealing with right now with the current City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 circumstance of the building being in a noncompliance zoning. Right now with the insurance, if it's wind insurance or any type of insurance, the banks have a problem because we can't give the 100 percent rebuild letter from the City based on the current zoning status. The truth is if we don't have that -- we have different grant programs. We have different funders who can actually put our programs in suspension because we don't have the -- we can't meet the forecast of what we planned on doing when we first got the grant funds, if we can't continue to grow based on our five-year projections or our ten-year projections. So really, we're being hindered not just today, but for the long term. So I stand here before you asking you to please pass this in favor of the FCAA. Thank you. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Mr. Kasdin. Neisen Kasdin: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, good evening. Neisen Kasdin, 1 Southeast 3rdAvenue, representing Dacra Development, the largest property owner in the Design District. I was a strong supporter ofMiami 21 and Dacra was a strong supporter of Miami 21 as well, and in supporting that, they left a lot of property rights on the table and willingly restricted what they could do with their properties. You've seen the track record of Dacra, the huge investment they have made, the quality of development, and the restraint they have exercised in developing the Design District, which is, today, one of the shining stars in the City ofMiami, providing great public attention, as well as job opportunities for the entire community. The current zoning violates one of the most important principles ofMiami 21, which is secessional zoning. T5 should not go to T3. There should be an interim zoning in between at a minimum, which is the T4. In addition, this area, the north side of 41 st Street, was in SD-8 because SD-8 was applied to the Design District. That north side of the street has always been viewed as a part of the Design District. And you have heard the excellent presentation from your Planning director, from Terry Riley as well, as to the impact of having retail on one side, the south side, and low density residential on the north side. You have neither successful retail because there's not the street activity, nor successful residential. You have a no-man's-land. It is in the interest of all investors in the Design District that this item move forward because as long as the zoning is influx, it will deter reinvestment in the street by Dacra or other property owners who are expressing interest in investing along 41st Street, taking over some of those abandoned sites on the south side of 41 st Street. Chair Sarnofff. Mr. Kasdin, does your client agree with the T4 39 feet? Mr. Kasdin: Yes, with a caveat, and I'll address that and finish my comments, Mr. Chair. Andl would also -- I advise you that Steven Gretenstein, the president of Dacra Development, is here with me this evening. The two issues that remain are as follows, as we see, Mr. Chair. Number one, we can support a reduction in the height for T4, but the appropriate height, we believe, would be 42 feet. That would allow 18 foot firstfloor for retail and two 12-foot stories above that, a significant reduction from the 54. But if you're going to allow ground floor retail, it has to have sufficient height to be successful. So we support the Planning staffs recommendation with that regard. Second point -- last point, Mr. Chair, is that we urge the City Commission to proceed to second reading in January -- to adopt it tonight, to proceed to second reading in January as well; and if the City Commission so chooses to give instruction to the Planning staff to forthwith bring before the Planning and Zoning Board new height regulations regulating T 4 citywide, please do not, though, and that will send a clear message to everyone concerned that this City Commission is serious about addressing the height issue in the T 4 transition, but at the same time, it will not leave 41 st Street in limbo, which it is today in a state in which investors and others will not know what to -- what the future of that street holds. So I ask you to proceed with that, set second reading in January, and give separate instruction this evening to proceed with the height review citywide for T4. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Cruz. City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Elvis Cruz: Thank you, sir. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, here on behalf ofMiami Neighborhoods United, speaking in support of our sister association Buena Vista. First, I want to address the upzoning of that one particular parcel. I have it here. And you can see it there outlined in black. You heard City staff mention earlier today that it was not good to have commercial across the street from residential, and yet, that is exactly what this proposed upzoning would do, bring commercial across the street from residential. Also, regarding the FCA [sic], no one is debating that they do good work, or no one is debating that they can continue to operate indefinitely, even though they would be nonconforming. However, let's be clear that they have been there since 1993 and as a non-profit, and they pay no taxes. They've had no carrying costs. They have no burden. They have no hardship. And yet, you've heard them say that they're contemplating selling and there it is. They want to make a windfall with the increased value of their property and they've paid no taxes all these years. The next issue I want to speak to is the history of 41 st Street. At this point I'd like to ask the Planning Department staff, if they could, to put up the slide that they had at the end of their presentation that showed the residential properties that are already on 41 st Street on the south side, the south side of 41 st Street. Is that -- are you able to do that, Francisco? Okay. While he does that, I want to point out that this photo you see here is from the Miami -Dade Urban Design Manual. This is an example of what is considered very good urban planning and very good streetscape, and here's another one. And if you look at those, they pretty much look like the existing Design District. It can be argued that the existing Design District is that part of the City which most accurately reflects the ideal, if you will, in urban planning. And yet, what did Miami 21 do? It took parts of the Design District up to T6-12, which is 20 stories. Miami 21 came along and put in zoning that would create an incentive to destroy the Design District and to cause speculation. So do you have that slide up yet, Francisco? It's coming, okay. So the point I was hoping to make -- and if -- you'll see the slide when they bring it back up. But if you remember the slide, there were residential buildings dating back to the 1920s on the south side of 41 st Street. That would indicate that that street used to be probably all residential, and over the years it was upzoned to commercial. So if you really want to do the right thing and not have commercial in front of residential, what you should do is take the south side of 41 st Street back to residential and then you would have the proper buffer. There it is. It's almost all the way to the left, to the west. Wait. There you go. That's a 1920s era building, and there were some other residential buildings along the south side that you saw there as well. So that's what was there originally, and, again, it was upzoned over time and now you have this historic district right across the street. So I would urge you to correct those mistakes. Protect this wonderful gem of an area, which nobody is arguing that it should be torn down. To the contrary, it should be preserved, and yet, that's what the zoning would do. Lastly, I want to speak to the 35 foot concept. The number 35 came from the Planning Department a number of years ago when we asked them what's the proper height for a 3-story building. Fifteen feet for the first floor so you can have retail, fifteen feet for the upper floors which can serve as either office or residential. Yes, it's perfectly normal to have an office with a ten foot floor pitch, especially if it's an office that's not in the middle of downtown where you might have a higher -end product. And so that's where the 35 came from. Even so, if you have a 35 foot building and the developer wants to have offices with higher floors, they can bring that 15 foot first floor down to 14 or 13 or even 12 and make up for it that way. So we would urge you -- if you're contemplating a citywide change in T4 from 53, we would urge you to bring it down to 35 because T4 is always going to be abutting single-family neighborhoods all throughout the City. And even 35 feet is a pretty tall building to put in somebody's backyard. That is the compromise. Chair Sarnofff. Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Thank you very much. Chair Sarnofff. Anyone else wishing to be heard, please step up. You're recognized for the record, ma'am. City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Jane Russell: Hello. My name is Jane Russell. I live at 4300 Northeast 1st Avenue, andl also am a realtor. I sell a lot of historic houses in and around Miami and especially in this area. One of the reasons people are attracted to this area, certainly not only because of the historic homes but also because of the infrastructure, which the businesses do provide. We're also terribly aware of the school that's there, and we have no problem with the school there. I do question, however, the fact that a realtor put the property under pending sale. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, pending sale means "Hello, we have a contract. " This is just hearsay, andl will repeat that. But I believe there are plans -- and please, somebody correct me if I'm wrong -- for a shopping mall there with a parking garage. So if the benefit is to the school, I would say great. But from what I understand, it's for the parking garage and the shopping mall. And yes, it will be wonderful to have all that there. The height restrictions, however, I think should really be looked at andl guess the ethics of it all. It just absolutely flabbergasts me that this is going on here. It really does. I'm shocked. I really am. Andl think that the timing of this is just beyond belief. It really is. Andl think, yes, I'm afraid to say, money, the 6.75 million, is at the base of this. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Gort: Yes. Chair Sarnoff. If you're not lined up, I'm not going to let you speak. I want to know who else is going to speak on this issue. So I'm going to spread you all out. Don't all bunch up behind one podium; there's another podium there. Ms. Solares, you're recognized for the record. Grace Solares: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Garcia -Toledo opened today telling you that this building had been grandfathered in as a T3 and that what happens if an act of God. Well, her client came here and the act of God went out the window 'cause he has the building for sale. To the answer to your specific question was well, will you sell? And he went, well, yeah. Actually, if the right price would be right, I guess it would. And if he gets a change in zoning, he would too. I was a witness to what Buena Vista did in order to get the designation of what they have right now, the T3. They fought tooth and nails. They went to every meeting. They met with the Planning Department. They met with Spence -Jones. They met with DPZ. And at the last moment, DPZ came up here and it was changed from what they had, and they got the T3. You have 167 signatures of people here. You're not here to actually favor speculation. You're here to protect the citizens of the City and the quality of life. You will be doing that if you do not change the zoning designation. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, sir. Asi Cymbal: Hi. Good evening. My name is Asi Cymbal, and I'm in favor of the T4 correction of the downzoning. The interest -- our interest is in creating a thriving community in the Design District. We own property there, including on 41 st Street. We have a track record of urban revitalization, including owning and operating, I think, an important restaurant there called Senor Martinez. We've done similar projects nearby, a few blocks away. We own and operate Gigi as well, and we redeveloped that series of dilapidated warehouses into a thriving cultural and food center. Our intent here is to create a similar cultured and intellectual environment for that block. We would love to, you know, put together a series of shops, bookstores, perhaps restaurants, and even own and operate some of our own businesses within that environment. Right now we steer to the north to a series of dilapidated properties where people are parking on top of it, and it really looks like a haven for crime, and it's just aesthetically unappealing. The De La Cruz Museum, I believe, is about 60 linear feet in height, so I'm not quite clear about the 30 or 40 feet that's being discussed here. To me it seems obvious that 60 feet, perhaps, is the better height limit and the more appropriate for the neighborhood. Essentially, what we're trying to do is reverse the trend on 41 st Street, reverse it from being an abandoned, derelict street to one that is more consistent with the Design District and a livable environment. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Annette Richter: Good evening. My name is Annette Richter. I live on 18 Northeast 42nd Street, and that happens to be one of the properties right behind -- north of the De La Cruz building. Beside the fact that we went through 20 month of construction nightmare with all different incidents I don't want to bother you with right now, I moved into the neighborhood in 1996. That's 14 years ago. Forty-first Street always used to be residential, one- and two-story residential with actually part -- some of these buildings, incredibly beautiful; should have been historic buildings. I don't have to add much to the presentations of my four speakers. The only thingI would like to say is that first of all, if the lots on North Miami Avenue, the three lots which are supposed to be rezoned separately, if they going to be rezoned to 53 feet, many of our properties are not going to get any sunlight anymore. Right now my lot doesn't get any sunlight between October and February, besides through the hole on the eastern side, which is now a vacant lot. The second thing I would like to say is that everybody in the City ofMiami says that they are very interested in the standard of living and actually, the -- what is it called? -- quality of life, andl would like you to take a minute and think about how much it would improve your quality of life if you would have buildings 53 feet tall, including bars, restaurants, and nightclubs allowed in your backyard, 20 feet away from your bedrooms. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Robin Porter: Hi. I'm Robin Porter, 122 Northeast 43rd Street, and I'm speaking in opposition to the zoning change. First of all, I bought my house in 2002, and it was a crack house. I found crack bags in the frames. I've had to redo the entire house. Just to give you an idea of what the neighborhood came from. So we were all for development, but it needs to be controlled. I bought into the historic neighborhood. I grew up in St. Louis; I understand the colors and the height restrictions and the modifications you can do for the house and the short bushes and so and so forth, and we've willingly accepted that. Taking the zoning on 41st Street and putting up a wall of commercial properties doesn't meet anything historically. We urge you to follow the recommendations from the Zoning Board. We were -- some of us were here at that last meeting and they voted against this change. And I'm sure you've heard evidence of possible sales and financial benefits and economic situations regarding commercial properties which have nothing to do with the residences. It was brought up that there was a financial loss to be had, which was the reason the FCAA put their property on the market. Every single property in the Design District and Buena Vista East has gone down in value. We're in the middle of an economic downturn. This is a housing bust, et cetera, and that -- I don't find that valid at all. We're not into -- in opposition to development, as long as it's low -density commercial, the 35-foot height restriction. That's an 18 foot gallery on the first floor and a set of offices on the second floor for 10 feet. That's simple. What lsee, andl don't know if it's ever been addressed with the City, is a lot of apples and oranges; people speak in terms of stories because you can fudge the numbers in stories. Eighteen feet is a story. Well, in my house, that's ten feet. So there's a huge discrepancy there, almost 80 percent. Additionally, we'd like to remind you we spent four years meeting with Miami 21 hashing out meetings. We're not lawyers; we don't get paid for these. FCA [sic] wasn't present at any of those meetings to express their interest in retaining their zoning. Chair Sarnoff In conclusion. Ms. Porter: Regarding the south side of 41st Street when I bought my house, there was a beautiful, fully restored fourplex on the corner of what is now that vacant lot with the really nice Chair Sarnoff In conclusion. Ms. Porter: -- fence around. Beautiful. City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Chair Sarnoff In conclusion. Ms. Porter: In conclusion, please -- in opposition. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff What was your full name again? Ms. Porter: Robin Porter. Chair Sarnoff Okay, thank you. Troy Frazier: Good evening, Chair. My name is Troy Frazier. I live on 4135 Northeast 1st Avenue. I am directly impacted by the speculative commercial change. I originally was going to do exactly what they're doing, except I bought the property first hoping to flip and upzone it myself. You see, I'm a physician, andl thought it would be great to have a home thatl could work in and practice medicine. I'm family practice, board certified. So I bought the property, started to put a bunch of improvements in it with the hope that it would be upzoned to accommodate what thought would be nice, an old-fashioned doctor or an old-fashioned home with a doctor in it, but the neighborhood association was in direct opposition with me. I spent a lot of money, time, over $100, 000 in improvements in the home. Yes, it was spliced up, broken apart. It was a drug home. Subsequent to going through the Planning, Zoning Board, I realized that the community would far -- would hurt substantially in the long run ifI continue the process, so I stopped putting the request in to upzone the corner on 4135 Northeast 1st and realized that what I wanted to do, I could do in a different location. So I stopped what I was doing, andl actually moved into the property. I live on 41 st Street. Forty first has come a long way. The Design District abuts my property. I enjoy the music. I like when the people walk by. Don't like the beer bottles, but hey, that comes with the territory. To make a long story short, we -- I moved my practice on the corner of 36 and Biscayne. We've seen hundreds of foster children for free in my practice. Last year we were designated in 2009 a Children's Hero. In 2009-2010 we got perfect scores from the Vaccines for Children program just by moving my office a few streets over, but we continued the mission statement because the community as a whole would benefit if I stayed there. I'm (UNINTET,T IGIBT,F) South Florida Business Journal in 2009 said that we were the recipient of the reward for community outreach. We beat out University ofMiami. So the original commitment to the neighborhood -- I tried to go in there and make a difference, but I realized the big picture. Community needs to stay intact. What I was doing would be to put an impetus to changes that would be not beneficial. As a provider who treats children in foster care and is board certified to see people from cradle to grave, I realize the impact of unstable neighborhoods, unstable communities I deal with on a daily basis from case managers, attorney's depositions. I strongly ask that the Commissioners look inside their hearts and realize that this is a community. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Frazier: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. Alfred Sasiadeck: Good evening. My name is Alfred Sasiadeck, andl live at 463 Northeast 55th Terrace, which is in the Morningside historic district. And I'd like to ask all of you Commissioners to put yourselves in the place of the homeowners that live in these historic homes that range from 1926, '25, '38; approximately 20 homeowners. I brought an architectural model with me too and it's located right behind you. If you'd just spin around and look at the height of this wall behind you, that's much less than 40 feet, okay. So even if we drop this transect down to 40 feet, that's what they're going to be staring at in their back yards. The whole purpose of Miami 21 was to have transects that step down so that you didn't have untoward height right next City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 to single-family homes. And running a transect down the middle of the block is not the right thing to do and that's what this plan does. Mr. Cruz, when he was up, he neglected to mention that with the higher zoning T5, T6 that did happen in the Design District, the original Miami Design District and Little Haiti Creole District Planning Study done by Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Company on page 41, they call for no new building shall be less than two stories and no more than four stories in height measured from the sidewalk to the top of the parapet. T5 and T6 go way beyond that. So we've gone away from this study that we paid to have done, okay. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Dunn, you're recognized for the record. Commissioner Dunn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move this item to support the approval of the Planning Department, and I'll reserve my comments. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff All right. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion and we have a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized. Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things -- andl don't want to mix because I know they're two separate -- this is PZ.13. One of the things that this Commission has been consistent on, at least from the time that I've been here, is trying to create compromise. That has been one of the things. One of the things -- if you look at my voting record since I've been here, whether it was in the West Grove, there were similar issues from the residents of the West Grove, andl asked them when I looked to see if there was somewhat of a balance of support or opposes whereas who were either for or against, it seem to balance itself out. And one of the things that we recommended as we follow the lead of the district Commissioner of that district is to look at how they could compromise. And so I am sensitive to everyone's concern, to the residents, andl will address that in PZ.14. But listening to the public comments, I understand that there is opposition, but I also recognize those from the community that support the project. And l just want to state for the record that not only was there support from the FCAA but also from the Haitian Heritage Museum who's on 41 st Street. I'm equally aware of the history surrounding the classification of this property as a T3-O, and I'm aware of the history surrounding zoning classification of the land in the surrounding area. On PZ.13, what we're really doing here on this item is simply land use, and as such, I am supportive of this item before us. So this is basically on PZ.13. We had a similar situation about a month or two ago in the Grove and it's a land -use change, so that's what I'm supporting. Chair Sarnoff All right. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is actually kind of a tough one for me. We have -- as the district Commissioner said, we have given very, very broad deference to the district Commissioner in terms of issues that are affecting their neighborhoods and on the principle that the district Commissioner is the one who has the best and the most intimate knowledge of how these issues affect their residents. Andl also live in a historic neighborhood, and interestingly, the -- there's an item that's coming up that deals with the properties that abut City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 that historic neighborhood, and the properties right now are zoned T6-8, the ones that abut the historic single-family neighborhood, and the requested -- or the downzone is from T6-8 to T5. So this is actually taking it down to T4. And then you're also putting on top of that a height limitation on T4 which has a citywide benefit and that's another thing that, from my perspective, being a district Commissioner, I know that any T4 in my district will now benefit from the reduction in height, which is very substantial from 53 feet to 42 feet. One of the applicants -- one of the petitioners who came up -- residents was talking about this -- and this is another very sensitive issue -- about residential, and the way he termed it is that it was our swale, and it's basically commercial parking on residential swales is the way I like to look at it, and it's a problem and it's a citywide problem. It's one that I'm having in my district. I'm dealing with it, you know, as best as I can, but it's a very, very difficult issue to deal with, and I'm -- you know, maybe it's something we should have a discussion item on because I know that there's a variety of different ways to handle it, but it's a tough issue to tackle, so it -- you know, I think that's something that maybe can be looked at between first and second reading, addressing that specific issue in that specific area to the extent that it's not a Jennings issue, you know. And I'm inclined to vote yes on this on first reading. I think the other thing is, you know, a lot of the residents that came up and spoke maybe didn't speak with the knowledge that there was a possible compromise, so hopefully, they can -- that can be explained to them, what that means and what kind of potential limitations there're going to be, and that may sway them one way or the other. So I'm -- it's a tough one for me. It's a very, very close one for me, but I think that, you know, the fact that it is a transitional area, it can kind of go either way. It can go back down. It can go up, you know, but -- you know, district Commissioner, in combination with the citywide reduction of T4, you know, and considering the fact that in my particular historic neighborhood, the abutting classification is T6-8 and maybe T5 after today, you know, it's a -- persuades me to support this on first reading. Chair Sarnoff. Design District is tough because the Design District is truly a vibrant place, and I can't say it better than Commissioner Suarez has said it. Andl happen to agree with Commissioner Dunn; the one thing that this Commission does is it shows respect to each Commissioner for their respective districts. He supported me on a very tough issue. He's going to have to support me, I think, again on a very tough issue. I could tell you thatl think the 39 feet is a big move and it's a good move. I understand your concerns. My concerns are the parking 'cause every time -- where do you draw the line? And it's a tough line to draw. I would question -- I'd like to know the City Attorney -- why is it that we can make a zoning classification change for a historic district and not go before the HEP Board? Maria J. Chiaro (Deputy City Attorney): I can read to you what the authority is of the HEP Board. It is not for zoning changes. It is for -- I actually have it. Chair Sarnoff. You're telling me it's not necessary. Ms. Chiaro: It's not necessary. That's correct. Chair Sarnoff. All right. I'm going to support the district Commissioner, andl hope he continues to enforce the 39 feet or -- Commissioner Dunn: Absolutely. Chair Sarnoff. -- maybe even something below that, but -- Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, the -- we've talked in the past. The district Commissioners, I think their opinion's very important because they've lived there, they're there constantly. But at the same time, the parking is becoming a problem throughout the whole City ofMiami. And you have some beautiful neighborhoods, like these individuals here, they're taking some of the old homes, they're fixing it up, and they're creating something very nice and very beautiful and City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 historical of that neighborhood. But at the same time, they have -- the success of the business is affecting their neighborhood and the quality of life in that neighborhood. And when you have people parking all over the place, they come home, they can't find parking. I will support it on the first reading, but at the same time, I think there's a lot of communication that needs to be done between the two parties. I mean, a lot of times you'll be amazed how much ideas you can get from your neighbors and some improvement that you can make. And believe me, talking to each other is very important. This is -- we all are residents of the City ofMiami, being a business people, being in business, having business in the City ofMiami, or having a residence within the City ofMiami. We all want the City ofMiami to benefit. We want our neighborhood to be better. 'Cause you can create a business, but if the neighborhood right next to your business goes down, guess what's going to happen to your business? It's going to go down. So you got to work with them. You got to work very close with each other. You got to support each other. I mean, investors and developers and business people have to work with their neighborhood 'cause you don't want your adjacent neighborhood to go down 'cause you're going to go down if you do. So hopeful, you all get together and you can come up with some plans that will satisfy everyone. Chair Sarnoff All right. We have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk [sic], it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5-0. PZ.14 ORDINANCE First Reading 10-01359zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T3-O" SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE TO "T4-O" GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHEAST 41 ST STREET BETWEEN NORTH MIAMI AVENUE TO THE WESTAND NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01359zc Analysis. pdf 10-01359zc Miami21 Map.pdf 10-01359zc Miami21 (Proposed).pdf 10-01359zcAerial Map.pdf 10-01359zc ExhibitA.pdf 10-01359zc PZAB Resos.pdf 10-01359zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-01359zc CC 12-16-10 FR Fact Sheet. pdf 10-01359zc-Su bmittal-Photographs. pdf 10-01359zc-Submittal-Buena Vista Homeowners Asso..pdf 10-01359zc-Submittal -Petitions of Support. pdf 10-01359zc-Submittal-Petitions to Deny the Application. pdf City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 LOCATION: Properties Located at the North side of NE 41st Street between North Miami Avenue to the West and NE 2nd Avenue to the East [Commissioner Richard P. Dunn - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 1, 2010 by a vote of 9-0. Also on December 1, 2010, they recommended approval for the three parcels fronting North Miami Avenue; located to the North of NE 41st Street; to the East of North Miami Avenue and to the South of NE 42nd Street, by a vote of 5-4. See companion File ID 10-013591u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to "T4-O" General Urban Transect Zone. Motion by Commissioner Dunn II, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Chair Sarnoff PZ.14. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. Commissioner Dunn: Again, I will move this item. Chair Sarnoff There's -- Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff -- a motion by Commissioner Dunn, second by the Vice Chair. Any further discussion? Commissioner Dunn: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I just -- I would just like to say that I'm -- like I said, I -- this is a close one for me, andl don't think that could support it on second reading without the T4 modifications, so I just want to put that clearly on the record. Commissioner Dunn: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Dunn: I will address that right now. As I stated earlier, I have listened to the public comments andl understand the opposition, but also recognize those from the community, andl support your feelings about it. I'm equally aware of the history surrounding the classification of this property as a T3-O and I'm aware of the history surrounding zoning classification for the land in the surrounding area. This really should have been a T4-O from the beginning, particularly given the history associated with the zoning classification of the property City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 under the 1100 [sic] zoning code. So I really want to be fair, so what I'm going to ask is that we pass this item on first reading so that would mean from a T3-O to a 3 [sic] 4 O. However, I would like for this T4-0 at this site to be lowered to the recommendation of our Planning Department, and I don't know if it's 40 or 39, whatever that figure is. Could you speak to that, Mr. Garcia? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Certainly, Commissioner. At this time our recommendation is for 40 feet. Commissioner Dunn: Okay. And that is my compromise, from a 53 feet normal to a 40. I also would ask that entertainment use for this site exclude teenage entertainment facilities. That's one of the things that I've been consistently against teen clubs because we know what normally follows that. Third, I understand that this T4-0, 53 height issue is a problem throughout the City. So if my colleagues -- I'm ask the Department if they're open to this idea, would look at whether it is advisable to recommend to this Commission that the T4-0 throughout the City be lowered to 40 feet. That would be my recommendation. And lastly, in conjunction, looking at lowering T-40 [sic] to 40 feet, I would like to see this issue before the Planning and Zoning Advisory Board as soon as possible. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Chair Sarnoff All right. Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Now I'd to go to the other side of it. You look at that neighborhood 20 years ago, Wynwood, that whole area, you would not moved in there and you wouldn't have bought property in that area. That area benefittedfrom the investment ofMidtown, from the investment of the galleries; and the people there started going in there and we saw it this last summer with the art shows that took place. So that's why I'm saying it takes the two to work together. Those neighborhood have improved, thank you to the investment and to the development that has taken place within that area. So that's very important to recognize also. If you don't have those development, that neighborhood could be going down too, so that's -- it's a -- we got to live together, believe it or not. Chair Sarnoff All right. We have a motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? All right, Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5-0. Chair Sarnoff All right. Let's go to PZ.15 and then we're going to go to PZ. 6. PZ.15 ORDINANCE First Reading 10-01360zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T5-O" URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE TO "T3-R" SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF INAGUA AVENUE AND AVIATION AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01360zc Analysis. pdf 10-01360zc Miami21 Map.pdf 10-01360zc Miami21 Map (Proposed).pdf 10-01360zcAerial Map.pdf 10-01360zc ExhibitA.pdf 10-01360zc PZAB Reso.pdf 10-01360zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-01360zc CC 12-16-10 FR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Properties Located at the NE Quadrant of the Intersection of Inagua Avenue and Aviation Avenue [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December 1, 2010 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to "T3-R" Sub -Urban Transect Zone. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chairman Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Chair Sarnoff All right. PZ.15. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Item PZ.15 is before you on first reading. The City is the applicant. And this proposes the rezoning of properties located in the Coconut Grove NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) area at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Inagua Avenue and Aviation Avenue. The zoning change that would -- that is being proposed would change the zoning of these properties from T5-O, which they presently are zoned, to T3-R, which, quite frankly, they should have remained zoned all along. By way of brief explanation, the properties that you see are outlined on the image on your screens were zoned R-1 under zoning ordinance 11000. That's single-family residential. And they also had an SD-12 overlay. The SD-12 overlay explains why the northwestern property on the map is presently occupied by a surface parking lot. Returning the three properties to T3-R would render that use legally nonconforming. They can continue to operate in that fashion, but not develop any further. But for that development, it would revert actually to a single-family residential use which is, we feel, what is appropriate for the area. We believe that in doing this, we are actually correcting an error that was made as part of the transition in zoning -from Miami -- from 11000 to Miami 21 and this will restore the fabric of the area. That's all have by way of presentation, sir. Chair Sarnoff Let me open up to a public hearing. Is anybody from the public wishing to be heard on PZ.15? Hearing -- City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Elvis Cruz: I'll be brief Commissioner. Don't worry. That's your be -brief -Elvis face. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I just want to say this is a moment in history. The Miami City Commission is zoning to R-1. Remember this day. Bottle the air. Thank you very much. And thank you also for taking an SD-12 back to the previous underlying zoning. Thank you, gentlemen. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, anyone else wishing to be heard from the general public? Hearing none, seeing none, the public hearing is now closed. I'd ask somebody to tender a motion. Commissioner Suarez: Motion. Chair Sarnoff All right. Vice Chair Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Commissioner Suarez, second by the Vice Chair. Any discussion, gentlemen? Hearing no discussion, Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5-0. PZ.16 ORDINANCE 10-01335zt First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, DEFINITIONS, SECTION 1.2 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF UNITY OF TITLE AND BY AMENDING ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.1 PROCEDURES BY ADDING A NEW SECTION, 7.1.7 UNITY OF TITLE, ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNITIES OF TITLE AND COVENANTS IN LIEU OF UNITY OF TITLE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 10-01335zt PZAB Reso.pdf 10-01335zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 10-01335zt CC 12-16-10 FR Fact Sheet.pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Tony E. Crapp, Jr., City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on December 1, 2010 by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will modify the definition of "unity of title", create minimum City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 requirements for unities of title, and establish covenants in lieu of unity of title as equivalents to unities of title. Motion by Vice Chairman Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Motion by Chairman Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be RECONSIDERED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Dunn II, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez, Dunn II and Gort Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): PZ.16. Chair Sarnoff Can I get a motion to defer PZ.16 to the next meeting? Vice Chair Carollo: So move. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion by the Vice Chair, second by Commissioner Dunn. All in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I did not catch the meeting you're deferring it to. Chair Sarnoff Next PZ (Planning & Zoning) meeting. Ms. Thompson: That'll be January 27. Chair Sarnoff That would be correct. Commissioner Suarez: I -- Chair Sarnoff Did hurt somebody that was waiting for this? You're waiting on this one? Joseph Furst: Going to be a quick one. Chair Sarnoff I just have trouble understanding how an entire PZAB (Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board) Board can recommend denial and we're still bringing it up here. I just wanted to study it a little more. But you waited the whole day. Mr. Furst: It's -- I could always come back, but I think it'll be a quick one. I mean, I'll obviously let Barnaby present first, but speak as a member of the public. Chair Sarnoff You're speaking in favor of --? City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Ms. Thompson: Chair, I'm -- Mr. Furst: In favor, definitely. Commissioner Gort: Name and address. Chair Sarnofff. State your name for the record. Just state your name for the record. Mr. Furst: Sure. Joseph Furst, offices at 804 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. Chair Sarnofff. You're a beach guy; we don't care. All right, I'll do a motion to reconsider. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Sarnofff. All right. All in favor -- Mr. Furst: Thank you, Commissioners. Chair Sarnofff. -- please say "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnofff. I can't, right. You have the Chair. All right. Vice Chair Carollo: Motion by Chairman Sarnoff, second by Commissioner Suarez. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Carollo: Anyone in opposition have the same right to say "nay. " Motion carries unanimously. Go ahead, sir. Barnaby Min (Zoning Administrator): Barnaby Min, on behalf of the Office of Zoning. PZ.16 is an amendment to Miami 21 to clarify the procedures for a unity of title and to allow for covenants in lieu of unity of title. To address the question proposed by the Chairman, the PZAB did unanimously vote for a denial. It is my belief that the reason they voted for a denial is that they were, in my humble opinion, of the opinion that this ordinance was going to be abused by developers. It is my belief that they're incorrect because, frankly, unity of titles are already allowed. This simply clarifies unity of titles, so any abuse that may be out there can already be committed by developers. So I don't believe respectfully that the PZ -- the concerns of the PZAB are accurate. Chair Sarnofff. This only applies to downtown property, correct? Mr. Min: It's citywide. Chair Sarnofff. But have in my notes, based on my conference with the Zoning Administrator, is that this did not apply to lower density residential. It only applied to -- Mr. Min: It does not apply to T3 transects, but it does apply to T4 and above. Chair Sarnofff. T4 and above. All right. City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 Mr. Min: Specifically on page 4, it specifies that T3 is excluded. Chair Sarnoff Let's hear from Mr. South Beach. Mr. Furst: Sure. I'll just give you a specific example as to why this is important. Chair Sarnoff Might want to give your name one more time. Mr. Furst: Joseph Furst, offices 804 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. In Wynwood we have an assemblage of properties where there's common ownership among 99 percent of the properties. There's eight different folios. One folio we have a long-term lease on. And what we're trying to do -- and this is a very specific example, and we have to go through the warrant process -- is have one use that covers multiple folios in multiple buildings, and the only way that we can effectuate that now under Miami 21 is by having a covenant in lieu for our warrant process, and without that we can't join these two properties to have a common use between them. Chair Sarnoff Is -- what you're saying is that this would facilitate joint ventures? Mr. Furst: It's not a joint venture. We're the tenant on a property where we -- literally the abutting property owner, we're the owner. The abutting property, we're the owner. What we want to do is have common use between both properties. Since we're a tenant in one and an owner in the other, I can't have straight unity of title, andl would need to use the covenant in lieu to effectuate one common use. It's very clear -- it's actually -- and specific, I know many of you have been there. It would be for the building next to Joey's restaurant, which is a building that we are tenants on, but we're not the landlord. It's a long-term lease with an option to buy. I can't do anything with that site connecting that site to Joey's or to anything else without this tool under Miami 21. Chair Sarnoff Okay, I understand. All right, gentlemen, is there a motion? Commissioner Gort: First reading, move it. Commissioner Dunn: Second. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion by Commissioner Gort, second by Commissioner Dunn. Anyone else from the general public wishing to be hears? Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to the Commission. Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Maria J. Chiaro. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5-0. Chair Sarnoff Do I have a motion to adjourn? Vice Chair Carollo: So move. Commissioner Dunn: So move. Chair Sarnoff Second by Commissioner Gort. All in favor? City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 1/6/2011 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2010 NA.1 10-01447 NA.2 10-01453 Mr. Furst: Thank you for your time. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEM VICE CHAIR CAROLLO RECOGNIZED STATE REPRESENTATIVE ERIK FRESEN IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. DISCUSSED Vice Chair Carollo: First of all, I'd also like to recognize State Representative Erik Fresen that's in -- thank you. Chair Sarnoff. I think he's in the paper today. Vice Chair Carollo: Yes. He's going to be the next chairman of the Republican Party for Miami -Dade County. Commissioner Dunn: Well, congratulations. Vice Chair Carollo: Congratulations, by the way. DISCUSSION ITEM BRIEF COMMENTS BY COMMISSIONER GORT REGARDING CITYWIDE CHANGES TO MIAMI 21, AND ITS IMPACT UPON NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MIAMI. DISCUSSED Roll Call: Present: Chairman Sarnoff, Vice Chairman Carollo, Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Dunn II and Commissioner Gort Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: I'd like to ask you a question. Andl understand Miami 21 -- andl think Miami did studies and analysis that have been done are very good, but when you talk about citywide, making changes citywide, you have to be very careful. This City have very different neighborhoods with different needs. So this is something that I really -- you're talking about changing the whole T4 citywide. You have to be very careful, 'cause I might not be in favor of it in my district 'cause might affect my business and some of the areas in my district. So really -- when you make that type of change, you really have to analyze the impact that that change is going to take in a specific neighborhoods [sic]. Thankyou. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): Thankyou, sir. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, and was passed unanimously, to adjourn today's meeting. City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 1/6/2011