Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2013-11-21 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Di Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 21, 2013 2:00 PM PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Marc David Sarnoff, Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Vice Chair Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner District Five Johnny Martinez, P.E., City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Vice Chair Gort, Chair Sarnoff and Commissioner Carollo Absent: Commissioner Suarez, Commissioner Spence -Jones and Commissioner Spence -Jones On the 21 st day of November 2013, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Sarnoff at 6: 41 p. m., recessed at 9: 03 p.m., reconvened at 9:12 p.m. and adjourned at 10: 26 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Johnny Martinez, P.E., City Manager ToddB. Hannon, City Clerk PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Chair Sarnoff All right, we're back on the record. I'm going to call PH.3. ToddB. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, my apologies. I thought we were starting with the Planning and Zoning. I thought we were opening up the Planning & Zoning agenda. Later... Chair Sarnoff Is everybody ready to proceed, Mr. Manager, now Mr. Planning & Zoning? Madam City Attorney, are you ready? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Yes, sir. Chair Sarnoff All right. Ms. Mendez: Mr. Chairman, you might want to get timing on both sides. Chair Sarnoff I think you read my mind. So, to the appellants, how much time do you need? Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chairman, we need -- we think we need about 40 minutes -- 30 minutes -- 40 minutes. Chair Sarnoff I'll give you 40 minutes. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry. Before we begin with this item, is it possible to put on the record items that we are suggesting to defer? Chair Sarnoff Oh, we -- I apologize. We were going to do that first. You're right. Commissioner Carollo: So -- and in fairness, I -- you know, I don't want people to be here for a long time and, you know, then we defer at the last minute when we could do it now. Chair Sarnoff You're right. I meant to do that, Commissioner. I apologize. All right, Mr. Planning and Zoning Director, Francisco Garcia, could you tell us what you are intending on asking us for deferral? City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Francisco Garcia: Yes, sir, gladly. For the record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning Director. The items I have slated for continuances today are as follows: PZ.4, PZ.7, PZ.11 and 12, these are companion items; PZ.13 and 14, also companion items; and PZ.15 and 16. And at this time, we are proposing that all of these be continued to the next available date, which is December -- Vice Chair Gort: Twelfth. Mr. Garcia: -- 12. Chair Sarnoff Okay, and -- all right, that's fine. Anybody have any other issues they want to have deferred? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Commissioner Carollo: I would like to have PZ.1, PZ. 9, PZ.10 deferred, and possibly -- and I'm not going to defer it yet. Let's see how long the meeting goes, but it's a possibility ofPZ.17 gets deferred. But I definitely want to defer PZ.1, 9, and 10. Chair Sarnoff So the motion appears to be 1 through 16, as stated, and holding off on 17. Mr. Garcia: May I ask, Commissioner Carollo, what date those might be deferred to? Is December 12 acceptable? Commissioner Carollo: You know what; I just don't want to jam pack December 12. Should we defer it to the PZ (Planning Zoning) meeting in January? Mr. Garcia: January. I'd like to tell you that at present, we don't have many items on the December 12, but certainly, there are a number that are being continued, so it's -- whatever your preference is, sir. Commissioner Carollo: You know what? I'll do my deferrals to December 12. Mr. Garcia: Very well. Chair Sarnoff All right, is there a motion? Commissioner Carollo: So move. Chair Sarnoff A motion by Commissioner Carollo. Vice Chair Gort: Second. Chair Sarnoff Second by Commissioner Gort. All in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, we haven't -- I'm sorry, because it's been a little disorganized based on all the movement and the two calendars -- agendas, I have not read my statement. City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Ms. Mendez: PZ items shall proceed according to Section 7.1.4 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn in by the City Clerk. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard. Commissioners have generally been briefed by City staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. The members of the City Commission shall disclose any ex parte communications to remove the presumption of prejudice, pursuant to Florida Statute Section 286.0115 and Section 7.1.4.5 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code, "Hearing Procedures." The appellant or petitioner will then present their application or request to the City Commission. If the applicant agrees with staff recommendation and no one from the audience wishes to speakfor or against the item, they may also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing. The order of presentation shall be as described in the City Code and the Miami 21 Code. Members of the public will be permitted to speak for not more than two minutes, unless modified by the Chair. 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, pursuant to City Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to the City Commissioners 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. For MCNP planned amendments, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as part of the public hearing, members of the public will be permitted to speakfor not more than two minutes on the proposition to amend the MCNP. Thank you. Mr. Hannon (as translated by Debra Spector, official Spanish interpreter): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. If you will be speaking on any of tonight's Planning & Zoning items, if I can have you stand and raise your right hand. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those giving testimony on zoning issues. Note for the Record: Debra Spector, official Spanish interpreter, translated the City Clerk's comments. Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair. Chair Sarnoff All right. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 PZ.1 05-0061 8ac1 PZ.2 13-00802ac RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 21 ST AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 22ND AVENUE AND BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 5TH STREET AND SOUTHWEST 6TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, WITH CONDITIONS AS STATED HEREIN. 05-00618ac1 CC 12-12-13 Fact Sheet.pdf 05-00618ac1 Department Analyses, Maps, PZAB Reso.pdf 05-00618ac1 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 05-00618ac1 CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 05-0061 8ac1 ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately Between SW 21 st Avenue and SW 22nd Avenue and between SW 5th Street and SW 6th Street [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPLICANT(S): David E. Sacks, Esquire, on behalf of Asset Recovery III, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on July 9, 2009 by a vote of 4-1. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on July 17, 2013 by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will allow the closure of an alley. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.1 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THE NORTHEAST27TH STREET ALLEY FROM BISCAYNE BOULEVARD TO APPROXIMATELY 730 FEET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA. City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 13-00802ac CC 11-21-13 Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00802ac Department Analyses & Maps.pdf 13-00802ac PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00802ac Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-00802ac CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 13-00802ac Exhibit A.pdf 13-00802ac-Submittal-Crime Analysis Request List.pdf 13-00802ac-Submittal-Letters of Support to Vacate Alley.pdf 13-00802ac-Submittal-Photos of Alley Way.pdf LOCATION: NE 27th Street Alley from Biscayne Boulevard to Approximately 730 Feet East of Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Estrellita S. Sibila, Esquire, on behalf of 27th Street Investments, LLC; 333 NE 27 Street Corp; 1200 Brickell 12th Floor, LLC; Graciela & Jaime Rodriguez Trust; Felix R. Rodriguez; Marta R. Rodriguez; Armando Rodriguez and Olga Rosado FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommends approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommends approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommends approval on September 5, 2013 by a vote of 6-0. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommends approval to City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will allow closure of an alley. Motion by Vice Chair Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones R-13-0472 Commissioner Carollo: Can we just defer everything? Chair Sarnoff Can we get a Manager up there? Oh, there you go. There's no rest for the weary. Commissioner Carollo: If you all don't object, can we just defer everything? Chair Sarnoff Okay. Commissioner Carollo: It's 10 o'clock. No? Chair Sarnoff There's some quick things I think we can do. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Chair Sarnoff You want to do a half an hour and see where we go? City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Commissioner Carollo: There's one that know that we're not going to be able to take up, so. Chair Sarnoff Which one's that? Commissioner Carollo: PH.3. Chair Sarnoff PH.3, okay. PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- Commissioner Carollo: That's on the -- no. That's on the regular agenda. Chair Sarnoff Oh, PH.3. I didn't figure we would. Commissioner Carollo: I thought we were, to be honest with you, but -- Chair Sarnoff No, no, I figured you wouldn't want to sit for that. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, 'cause -- Chair Sarnoff That's okay. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Chair Sarnoff All right, PZ.2. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. I apologize for the slight delay. Item PZ.2 is a resolution before you proposing an alley closure for an alley located close to or approximately along Northeast 27th Street and approximately 730 feet east of Biscayne Boulevard. This has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Public Works Department, by the Planning & Zoning Department, by the Plat and Street Committee, and by the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board. This basically will take an alley which presently sits unimproved and dysfunctional, and simply add that land to what is presently a number of single-family residential lots, all of which are nonconforming, which essentially means they are under -sized. For that reason, we are recommending approval. We'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. Vice Chair Gort: Move it. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion by - Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff -- Commissioner Gort, second by Commissioner Carollo. It's a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on PZ.2, please step up. Andl thinkl have -- Is Kent Morrison Robbins here? Kent Harrison Robbins: Kent Harrison Robbins. Chair Sarnoff Harrison. Harrison. My, you got to get your "H's" better; looks like an "M. " (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Don't worry. Go ahead, you're recognized. Mr. Robbins: Okay. I assume that the applicant is going to make their presentation and l'm going to respond. Chair Sarnoff There was a motion; there was a second. City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Robbins: Okay. Chair Sarnoff And now it's a public hearing. Mr. Robbins: Thank you. My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. I'm a owner of property in the City ofMiami at 242 Northeast 27th Street. I received actual notice for this hearing because I'm within the vicinity of the alley closure. This alleyway is not truly an alleyway, but a pathway to the bay, and actually, it's access to the bay. And just to be familiar with it, I'm going to hand over three photographs that I took on October 24, the afternoon of the previous time this matter was set for hearing before this Commission to show you this alleyway. Commissioner Carollo: Doesn't matter, and you need one for the record. Mr. Robbins: Just quickly, there is nothing in the record that shows that there was timely posting and adequate posting of the matter. Under Section 62.129, the -- there must be posting in the vicinity of the areas that are going to be modified or in the area that of the vacating of the alleyway at least 10 days prior to hearing. According to when I was there, about 14 days before, there was no such posting. I was not there exactly 10 days before, but it was not there 14 days before. The one that was there did not have any information concerning this hearing, so the notice was not adequate. Number two, under 55.15(b), access must be provided to the nearest public street when you vacate an alleyway. What has happened here is that when the Crimson Towers was approved, access way was approved to close down part of this so-called alleyway, which is a path to the bay and access to the bay and -- but still allowed access through the Crimson property from the bay to the area that's being closed. That area -- Chair Sarnoff Mr. Robbins, another one minute. Mr. Robbins: May I have some more time? Chair Sarnoff I'm giving you one more minute. Mr. Robbins: Okay. We did not have -- that access is now being closed up. The question here is, under 55-15: Is it in the public interest or would the general public benefit for the vacation of the right-of-way or easements? I say "no." The justification for the closing is that there is substantial crime and there's an actual attractive nuisance. As you can see from those photographs, there is -- this is a open pathway to the bay. There is nothing in the record to show that there is any criminal activity; just a conclusion or representation that there's criminal activity. There's not a single police report showing any criminal activity in the last two years along this alleyway that would be of an extent that would require the closing of the alleyway. Chair Sarnoff All right, are you done? Mr. Robbins: This is not -- I was just handed documents just today. This is the first time disclosed. This is about burglaries in 25th Street, 26th Street; nothing referencing the alleyway, that can see. I'd have to -- being handed to me just now, I would not be able to review it at this point, but this was not put in the record below, and it does not relate directly to the alleyway, what I was handed and put into the record, and there's no sufficient record -- Chair Sarnoff In conclusion? Mr. Robbins: In addition, there is no showing there is an attractive nuisance. There's no specific reports concerning this particular alleyway. There is no reason why a pathway could not be kept. And the other criteria that is required is to determine on whether or not to close under 55-15 is: Would the vacation and closure of the right-of-way have a beneficial effect on pedestrian circulation in the area? And say, "no." Right now, this is a protected pathway to City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 the bay, and, in fact, it's quite beautiful. As you can see, on photograph number 3, it's so quiet and so peaceful that even the ducks and their chicks are sitting in that pathway to the bay. This is a very -- this is part of old Miami. This is part of the beauty ofMiami, and we should not deny public access to the bay along a quiet way, not -- which is not used by vehicular traffic. I ask you to deny the closure and deny this move by a developer to fund another development by promising property owners that if they close their one property and allow the Crimson Tower to close their alleyway, that they will help them close the property owners' alleyway, pay for all these costs to the detriment of everybody else in the neighborhood. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Robbins: This is a land graph, and that's all it is. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Alejandro Crespi. Alejandro Crespi: Good evening. My name's Alejandro Crespi. I have a property on 223 Northeast 27th Street. We also own some properties on 26th Terrace. We have the alleyway right behind our property. This alleyway is nothing like he's speaking about, a pathway. It's used for people selling drugs back there, doing drugs; there's prostitution going on back there. It doesn't do anything for our business or for the community. I'm with closing it down. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Brett Moss. Brett Moss: Hello. Brett Moss, 503 27th Street. I think this is a real issue of safety. We own three properties along this alleyway. All of our tenants have expressed issues and concerns, because they see people walking behind their property; not only that, I actually walked there today. I don't know ifI can show this picture, but we -- actually, this is about an hour before the hearing this morning, and one of -- their fence is actually pushed in, and we also found some furniture back there as well. This is not an attractive place for a pedestrian to walk. It's 15 feet wide, 750 feet in length, and pedestrians really need to be making the City alive. It's important that they're along the street. I think that's very critical and vital for a community, and there is an access that is being placed between one of our properties and the Crimson that would be able to get you to the park, and I think that's where it needs to be. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Franklin Arrufat. Franklin Arrufat: How you doing? I live on 323 Northeast 27th Street. Here's my license to prove it. I been living there since 1994. I seen that neighborhood do a whole circle all the way around. The alley, my dogs, the boys and dogs that have, I have two Akitas, and every day, people grab my -- they break the brush I have in the back, poking at my dogs all night long. I work. I get up at 4: 30 in the morning, okay, every day. I get home at 6, 7 o'clock, and all night long, I got to hear my dogs barking at the people going up and down that alley which don't belong on that alley. The alley is nothing beautiful in the world. What's really beautiful is if you stand on 27th Street and you look straight down, it's really beautiful. Icon Bay has taken all that. You cannot see anything there. So I don't know where he's saying he can see the bay. He's never lived on that street. He's never had to deal with people selling drugs in the back of the alley where El Alita (phonetic) is, where Papa John's is. I dealt with it right in front of my house. I'll show you real quick. Anyway, City ofMiami is the best place in the world, okay? And for me, that's part to do with it . Chair Sarnoff Joel Rodriguez. Joel Rodriguez: Hi. Joel Rodriguez. 501 Northeast 29th Street. I been involved in the Edgewater community for about 18 years. I know a lot of the people that own properties there on 27th, andl understand what they've been going through for several years. I support the City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 closure, andl think it's a right decision. It's up to you, but believe that you should support it. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Felix Rodriguez. Felix Rodriguez: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Felix Rodriguez. I'm actually here on behalf of my parents, Felix and Marta Rodriguez, who are the owners of 417 Northeast 27th Street, one of the properties that's adjacent to this alley. I was born, lived basically my entire life in Edgewater. For 20 years, I lived at 411 Northeast 25th Street, and in 2002, we moved to 417 Northeast 27th Street. I didn't move out of Edgewater until November of 2011, so I spent nearly 10 years of my life living right next to this alley. In the 2007/2008 time frame, the crime had gotten so bad in the area that my parents asked me to set up surveillance cameras around the property; that's exactly what I did. If you were to walk down that alley today, you would find a dome camera that's still hanging off the back of 417 Northeast 27th, because that was pointed down the alleyway, because of the number of times they had tried to break into my grandmother's house, which was located right behind on 28th Street. That alley -- excuse me -- that camera was set to capture motion, and the most interesting thing is that we discovered that the best majority of the traffic on the alleyway occurred between 1 and 6 in the morning. There was a tremendous amount of what looked to us like drug transactions going on. There was dumping of materials at 3 o'clock in the morning. It was a nuisance and continues to be a nuisance. I was there, I lived it, I recorded it. We reported many of these things to the City ofMiami PD (Police Department) at the time, but for those reasons and for the reasons that you've already heard tonight, I strongly urge you to pass this measure and close down this alleyway. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Armando Rodriguez. Armando Rodriguez: Good evening, Commissioners. I appreciate it that you accept in this point in the agenda so late at night. I am the owner for 41 Northeast 27th Street. I'm a community activist in Edgewater for 26 years. You have saw me here many times looking for a better quality of life for Edgewater. From the police mini -station that we created 21 years ago to the umbrella task force that belong that was created by Janet Reno, to planting Royal palm trees on Biscayne Boulevard, to have cleanup from my former students ofBelen Jesuit in Edgewater, particularly in that particular alley and it's always been a disaster. I have been involved in Edgewater since 1987, andl was raised in Edgewater. Here, you have all the property owners of Edgewater at 27th Street that have been here since 2 o'clock this afternoon to wait for this moment. Today, I'm here to ask you to support the closing for what remain of the 27th Street alley. I have two letters of support: One from Father Menendez and the other from the Jesuits on 27th Street. The one from Father Menendez reads -- it's very short: "Honorable Commissioners, please be advised that I, Father Jose Luis Menendez, pastor of Corpus Christi Catholic Church, which includes Edgewater neighborhood and pastor of the Mission of San Francisco in Santa Clara, located at 42 Northeast 29th Street between Biscayne Boulevard and the Bay, write this letter in support of the vacation and closure of Northeast 27th Terrace right-of-way from Biscayne Boulevard to the bay and the petition brought forth by the members of the 27th Street Homeowners Association, Inc. This alley has always been a source of trouble for the neighborhood, and the worst impact has been felt by the owners of the two adjacent streets. This is a unique situation for us since this is the only alley in the residential neighborhood east of Biscayne Boulevard. The alley has been a place where people get into all sort of trouble, do all sort of things, and no one can see them, but this letter will support the closing of the alley so that we can prevent this from happening in the future. When the new park is built along the water, we want to feel safe walking there. We don't want to have to worry about what may be lurking between the walls of the alley where no one is watching. We hope that you approve the closure of the alley today. Thank you. Jose Luis Menendez." This other letter is from the largest property owner on 27th Street, the Society of Jesus. "To Whom It May Concern: I represent ACU Holding, Inc., the owner of the property at 720 Northeast 27th Street and 717 Northeast 27th Street, Miami, Florida. My client has owned this property for more than 10 years. This is to advise you that my client is in favor of and City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 supports the effort to vacate the closure of the Northeast 27th Terrace right-of-way from Biscayne Boulevard to the bay, pursuant to the petition brought by the members of the 27th Street Homeowners Association, Inc. The alley's presence has continued substantially to the deterioration of the neighborhood. It has been a magnet for garbage, drug use, prostitution, and criminal activity. My clients support the closure in order to create a safe and clean neighborhood." Benito Diaz is the attorney that represents the Society of Jesus. This alley has always been a problem. And here are the people whose properties are adjacent to the alley, and who are on 27th Street. All of them are here, and we ask you, please, to move forward on this. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Javier Fernandez. You live on 27th Street? Javier Fernandez: I do not, Commissioner, as you well know. Good evening. Javier Fernandez with Akerman Senterfitt, here on behalf of Alpine Estates, T,T C (Limited Liability Company), which is the owner of the property located on the easternmost portion of the alley previously vacated by this Commission. Very briefly, we want to state our strong support for this closure request, based on all of the -- for all the reasons you've heard previously, and just remind you, this is part of a long-term collaborative effort by Related, my client, and the homeowners in the area to basically close down this street, remove the nuisance, and replace it with a one -acre park on the waterfront, accessible from both 28th and 27th Streets. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, the public hearing is now closed; coming back to -- Mr. Robbins: May I --? Chair Sarnoff No, there's no surrebuttal here. Mr. Robbins: No, I'm asking to cross-examine that witness. Vice Chair Gort: No. Chair Sarnoff No. Mr. Robbins: I'm an interested person, and I'm requesting -- Chair Sarnoff No. Mr. Robbins: -- cross-examination on a limited scope of the last witness -- Chair Sarnoff No. Mr. Robbins: -- concerning their interest -- Chair Sarnoff No. Mr. Robbins: -- their personal interest and whether they're lobbyists and whether they're properly registered. Chair Sarnoff I'm sure he's a registered lobbyist. I'm sure he -- and he came up as a lobbyist and as an attorney on behalf of a client. Mr. Robbins: It wasn't disclosed that he's a lobbyist, number one, on the record; and number two, I'd also like to move to strike this exhibit; this exhibit that supposedly supports -- Chair Sarnoff Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Robbins: May I move to strike? Vice Chair Gort: Yeah. Mr. Robbins: May I move to strike: Chair Sarnoff You move to strike, you do whatever you want -- Mr. Robbins: On the grounds (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Chair Sarnoff -- But I'll tell you what. Mr. Robbins: -- the grounds for the record so I can make a record. Vice Chair Gort: He's building his record. Mr. Robbins: My record. May I make my record? That's all. It's just another 15 seconds. I reviewed this crime analysis report for the area, and not a single crime listed here is listed for the alleyway on 27th Street. It's listed for the streets on 28th Street or 27th Street, in the general area, but not on the alleyway, not a single crime on that area in this report. Vice Chair Gort: Thank you. Estrella Sibila: For clarification of the record, since we're doing that, we have -- for the record, my name is Estrella Sibila. I'm the attorney for the applicants. The crimes analysis statistic report does not reflect anything specifically on the alleyway since there are no property addresses that have an alley address. They would reflect the 27th Street address or the 28th Street address because that's the property address where the call would be reflected from. Chair Sarnoff All right. Vice Chair Gort: Question. Chair Sarnoff Commissioner Gort. Vice Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. I imagine this is part of the alley that we had in the old times when they had garbage picked up behind the doors of the home. Now, my understanding is the property owner at that time deeded that property to the City ofMiami; am I correct? Mr. Garcia: That is correct. And there would be then a reverter clause back to the property (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Gort: So now the owners are requesting to have it back as their property. Okay, thank you. Chair Sarnoff All right. Vice Chair Gort: And we have 100 percent of the property owner adjacent to the alley sign for it. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Vice Chair Gort: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff We had a motion and we had a second. All in favor, please say aye.' The Commission (Collectively): Aye. PZ.3 RESOLUTION 13-01045ac A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN NORTHEAST 21 ST STREET AND NORTHEAST 22ND STREET BETWEEN NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE AND BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 13-01045ac CC 11-21-13 Fact Sheet.pdf 13-01045ac Dept. Analyses, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-01045acApplication & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-01045ac CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-01045ac ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately between NE 21st Street and NE 22nd Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff- District 2] APPLICANT(S): Iris V. Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of National Foundation for Advancement in the Arts, Inc., Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommends approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommends approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommends approval on June 6, 2013 by a vote of 5-0. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommends approval to City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will allow closure of an alley. Motion by Vice Chair Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones R-13-0473 Chair Sarnoff Okay. Commissioner -- EstrellitaSibila: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff -- I sort of agree with you. There's no point in trying to finish this. It's your call. Vice Chair Gort: PZ.3 is the next one. Chair Sarnoff PZ (Planning & Zoning) what? City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Lucia Dougherty: If you would handle just PZ.3, we have no objectors, and won't make a presentation. Chair Sarnoff How many people are going to come to the public hearing? Ms. Dougherty: None. Vice Chair Gort: Alley closure. Ms. Dougherty: It's just an alley. Chair Sarnoff All right, PZ.3. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item -- Vice Chair Gort: PZ.3. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Chair Sarnoff What's that? Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) PZ.5. Chair Sarnoff It's PZ.4, right? PZ.3. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Item PZ.3 is a resolution proposing the alley closure for an alley approximately between Northeast 21 st Street and 22nd Street, between Northeast 2ndAvenue and Biscayne Boulevard. This is part of a larger parcel. It is an alley that is presently not functional and not improved, and its closure will simply allow for a unified plot of land to allow for proper developing -- development of the land. I want to say for the record that this has been recommended for approval by the Public Works Department, by the Planning & Zoning Department, by the Plat & Street Committee, and by the Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board unanimously. Chair Sarnoff All right, is there a motion? Vice Chair Gort: Move it. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff We have a motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. Public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on PZ.4, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission; all in favor, please say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sarnoff PZ.5. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Mr. Garcia: Sorry, sir, that was PZ.3. Chair Sarnoff Sorry? City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, right. Mr. Garcia: That was PZ.3. Commissioner Carollo: Right. Chair Sarnoff Oh, I'm sorry, you're right. Mr. Garcia: Just to clam. Chair Sarnoff Right. PZ.4 RESOLUTION 13-01046sc A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE NORTHEAST60TH STREET FROM NORTHEAST 5TH COURT TO BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, AND NORTHEAST 5TH COURT FROM APPROXIMATELY 90 FEET NORTHWEST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD TO NORTHEAST 60TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 13-01046sc CC 12-12-13 Fact Sheet.pdf 13-01046sc Dept. Analyses, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-01046scApplication & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-01046sc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-01046sc ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately NE 60th Street from NE 5th Court to Biscayne Boulevard, and NE 5th Court from Approximately 90 Feet NW of Biscayne Boulevard to NE 60th Street [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of The Cushman School, Inc., A Not -For -Profit Corporation FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on June 6, 2013 by a vote of 4-0. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 7-0. PURPOSE: This will allow for better maneuverability and access of emergency vehicles to serve the existing school. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.4 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 PZ.5 ORDINANCE Second Reading 13-00839zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FORA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM "T4-R" GENERAL URBAN ZONE - RESTRICTED TO "T5-O" URBAN CENTER ZONE - OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2750 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-00839zc CC 11-21-13 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00839zcAnalysis, Maps, Sch. Brd. Conc. & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00839zc Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-00839zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-00839zc Exhi bit A. pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2750 SW 22nd Street [Commissioner Francis Suarez - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Spencer Crowley, Esquire, on behalf of GL Coral Way 26, LLC and Brickell 13 Chase, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommends approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommends approval to City Commission on September 23, 2013 by a vote of 8-0. PURPOSE: This will change the zoning of a portion of the above property from "T4-R" to "T5-O". Item does not include a covenant. Motion by Vice Chair Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones 13418 Chair Sarnoff And now we're up to PZ.5. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Is that right? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Chair Sarnoff And then we'll call it a day after this. Mr. Garcia: Item PZ.5 is a second reading ordinance before you to propose a rezoning of a parcel of land at 2750 Southwest 22nd Street. The change is from T4-R to T5-0. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I feel uncomfortable on voting on this when this is something in D4, and the District 4 Commissioner is not here. It's an ordinance; it's a second reading. City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 PZ.6 12-01180zc5 Mr. Garcia: It is, sir. In my briefings with Commissioner Suarez, he asked to convey that he was explicitly in favor of moving forward on this item. By that, I mean moving forward with your consideration, of course. Vice Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Chair Sarnoff Okay, all right, so we had -- do we have a motion? Vice Chair Gort: Move it. Chair Sarnoff Motion by Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Sarnoff Second by Commissioner Carollo. It's a public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard on PZ.5, please step up; hearing none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission. Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.5. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 3-0. Chair Sarnoff We are in adjournment on the PZ (Planning & Zoning), and then I have to reopen the other one, and then we'll adjourn that. Go ahead. I -- You guys could leave. I think can adjourn the meeting. ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T6-24-0" URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - 24 - OPEN TO "T6-36B-O" URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - 36B - OPEN IN THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY NORTHEAST 20TH TERRACE TO THE NORTH, NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE TO THE WEST, NORTHEAST 17TH TERRACE TO THE SOUTH, AND NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FURTHER IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT HAVING CONDUCTED A BIENNIAL EVALUATION OF THE MIAMI 21 ATLAS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.1.2.8.6.2, HAS FOUND THE CHANGES TO BE APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S NEIGHBORHOODS; RESULTING ZONING CHANGES APPROVED THROUGH THIS BIENNIAL EVALUATION OF THE MIAMI 21 ATLAS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.1.2.8.6.2, SHALL NOT PROHIBIT, PREVENT OR LIMIT OWNERS OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED HEREIN FROM APPLYING FORA REZONING PURSUANT TO SECTION 7.1.2.8.G.5, FURTHER DIRECTING THE PLANNING AND ZONING City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 DEPARTMENT TO REVERT ANY ACCOMPANYING LAND USE CHANGE ADOPTED FOR ANY ZONING CHANGE NOTAPPROVED IN THIS ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114 AND THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM); MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 12-01180zc5 CC 12-12-13 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 12-01180zc5Analysis, Maps, 3-D Photo & PZAB Reso.pdf 12-01180zc5 CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 12-01180zc5 ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately the Area Generally Bounded by NE 20th Terrace to the North, NE 2nd Avenue to the West, NE 17th Terrace to the South, and NE 4th Avenue to the East [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Johnny Martinez, City Manager, on behalf of City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 18, 2013 by a vote of 10-0. PURPOSE: This will change the area described above from "T6-24-0" to "T6-36B-O". NO ACTION TAKEN Note for the Record: Per Miami City Code Section 2-33(k), Item PZ.6 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.7 ORDINANCE Second Reading 11-00144zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING CHAPTER 4/ARTICLE I OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES/IN GENERAL," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 4-11, ENTITLED, "EXCEPTIONS TO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS," TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS PERMITTED IN THE WYNWOOD CAFE DISTRICT, AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FROM 25 TO 40; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00144zt CC 12-12-13 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 11-00144zt Color Maps.pdf 11-00144zt CC FR Legislation (Version 1).pdf 11-00144zt ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Wynwood Cafe District [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2 and Keon Hardemon - Commissioner District 5] APPLICANT(S): Johnny Martinez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will increase the number of alcoholic beverage establishments permitted within the Wynwood Cafe District from 25 to 40. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.7 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.8 ORDINANCE Second Reading 13-01089zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 5, ENTITLED "SPECIFIC TO ZONES", TO MODIFY SECTION 5.6.2 IN ORDER TO ADJUST BUILDING CONFIGURATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ROOFTOP ENCLOSURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR T6-12 TRANSECT ZONE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-01089zt CC 12-12-13 SR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-01089zt PZAB Reso.pdf 13-01089zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT(S): Johnny Martinez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with a modification* to City Commission on September 23, 2013 by a vote of 8-0. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This amendment addresses the need to provide additional height for housing stairs, elevator, mechanical equipment extensions and ornamental features in T6-12 to give the same flexibility as higher -intensity Transect Zones. NO ACTION TAKEN Note for the Record: Per Miami City Code Section 2-33(k), Item PZ.8 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.9 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-00817Iu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 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 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT APPROXIMATELY 469 NORTHWEST 23RD PLACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-008171u CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00817IuAnalysis, Maps, Sch. Brd. Conc. & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-008171u Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-008171u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-008171u ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 469 NW 23rd Place [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPLICANT(S): Otto C. Munoz, Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 18, 2013 by a vote of 10-0. See companion File ID 13-00817zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "Single -Family Residential" to "Duplex Residential'. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.9 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.10 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-00817zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T3-R" SUB -URBAN ZONE TO "T3-O" SUB -URBAN ZONE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 469 NORTHWEST 23RD PLACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-00817zc CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00817zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00817zcApplication & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-00817zc CC 11-21-13 Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-00817zc ExhibitA.pdf City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 LOCATION: Approximately 469 NW 23rd Place [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPLICANT(S): Otto C. Munoz, Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 18, 2013 by a vote of 10-0. See companion File ID 13-008171u. PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T3-R" to "T3-O". Item does not include a covenant. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.10 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.11 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-008651u 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 SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT APPROXIMATELY 180 NORTHEAST 50TH 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. 13-008651u CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00865Iu Analysis & Color Maps.pdf 13-008651u PZAB Reso.pdf 13-008651u FR/SR Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 13-008651u CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 13-008651u Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 180 NE 50th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Douglas Gardens Holding Corp. FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File ID 13-00865zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial'. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.11 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.12 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-00865zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T4-R" GENERAL URBAN ZONE -RESTRICTED TO "T4-L" GENERAL URBAN ZONE -LIMITED, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 180 NORTHEAST 50TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-00865zc CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00865zcAnalysis & Color Maps.pdf 13-00865zc PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00865zc FR/SR Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 13-00865zc CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 13-00865zc Exhi bit A. pdf LOCATION: Approximately 180 NE 50th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Douglas Gardens Holding Corp. FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with modifications* to City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 6-1. See companion File ID 13-008651u. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T4-R" to "T4-L". Item includes a covenant. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Note for the Record: Item PZ.12 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.13 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-00866Iu 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 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT APPROXIMATELY 5445 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-008661u CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00866IuAnalysis, Maps, Sch. Brd. Conc. & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00866Iu Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-008661u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-008661u Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 5445 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Ruben Matz, Chocron, LLC; S & R Investments LLC and Isaac Matz FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 18, 2013 by a vote of 7-3. See companion File ID 13-00866zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "Single -Family Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial'. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.13 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.14 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-00866zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FORA PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM "T3-R" SUB -URBAN ZONE - RESTRICTED TO "T4-O" GENERAL URBAN ZONE - OPEN, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5445 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-00866zc CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00866zc Analysis, Maps, PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00866zc Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-00866zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 13-00866zc Exhi bit A. pdf LOCATION: Approximately 5445 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Ruben Matz, Chocron, LLC; S & R Investments LLC and Isaac Matz FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September 18, 2013 by a vote of 7-3. See companion File ID 13-008661u. PURPOSE: This will change the zoning of a portion of the above property from "T3-R" to "T4-O". Item includes a covenant. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.14 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.15 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-008671u 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 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT APPROXIMATELY 2700 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE AND 235 NORTHWEST 27TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 13-008671u CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-008671u Analysis.pdf 13-008671u Color Maps & School Board Concurrency.pdf 13-008671u PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00867Iu Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 13-008671u CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 13-008671u Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2700 NW 2nd Avenue and 235 NW 27th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Steven J. Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of G40, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 6, 2013 by a vote of 11-0. See companion File ID 13-00867zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "Medium Density Restricted Commercial and Light Industrial" to "General Commercial'. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.15 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.16 ORDINANCE First Reading 13-00867zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T5-O" URBAN CENTER ZONE -OPEN AND "D1" DISTRICT ZONE TO "T6-8-O" URBAN CORE ZONE -OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2700 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE AND 235 NORTHWEST 27TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 13-00867zc CC 11-21-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00867zc CC 12-12-13 FR Fact Sheet.pdf 13-00867zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-00867zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 13-00867zc CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 13-00867zc Exhi bit A. pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2700 NW 2nd Avenue and 235 NW 27th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Steven J. Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of G40, LLC City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 PZ.17 06-02074x1 FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November 6, 2013 by a vote of 11-0. See companion File ID 13-008671u. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "T5-O" and "D1" to "T6-8-O". Item includes a covenant. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item PZ.16 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY DENYING OR GRANTING AN EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4-7(B) AND 4-11(G) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, TO ALLOWA PACKAGE LIQUOR STORE CLOSER THAN 500 FEET OF ANOTHER PACKAGE LIQUOR STORE, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 250 AND 296 SOUTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO PLANS ON FILE AND SUBJECT FURTHER TO A TIME LIMITATION OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 06-02074x1 CC 12-12-13 Fact Sheet.pdf 06-02074x1 Appeal Letter & Supporting Documents.pdf 06-02074x1 Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 06-02074x1 Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 06-02074x1 CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 06-02074x1 CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 06-02074x1 Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 250 and 296 SW 7th Street [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3] APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Brickell Commerce Plaza, Inc. and 296 SW 7 Street Corporation, Owners and GKK-Brickell, LLC, Contract Purchaser FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the appeal and approval with conditions* of the Exception. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Approved with conditions, but failed, constituting a denial of the Exception by a vote of 3-4. City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 PZ.18 13-01030ii *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a package liquor store within 500 feet of another liquor store. NOTE(S): Related File ID 06-02074x was withdrawn on September 23, 2013. NO ACTION TAKEN Note for the Record: Per Miami City Code Section 2-33(k), Item PZ.17 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL BY GRANT STERN, PETER EHRLICH, ROSI BARRIOS, SANDI MADGER, DAVID LE BATARD, YASMINE GARATE, AND ANTHONY DAVIDE, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY APPROVING THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 12-0054, ISSUED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 12, 2013, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3055 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 13-01030ii CC 11-21-13 Fact Sheet.pdf 13-01030ii Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 13-01030ii Appeal by Appellant for Commission. pdf 13-01030ii Appeal by Appellant for PZAB.pdf 13-01030ii Class II Approved by the P&Z Dept.pdf 13-01030ii CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf 13-01030ii CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf 13-01030ii ExhibitA.pdf 13-01030ii-Submittal-Presentation-Background and Introduction.pdf 13-01030ii-Submittal-Presentation-Wal-Mart Projection in Midtown.pdf 13-01030ii-Submittal-North Miami Elevation.pdf 13-01030ii-Submittal-Paul C. Savage-PowerPoint Presentation -Appeal of Class II Special Permit.p 13-01030ii-Submittal-Mark Alvarez Presentation -Midtown Walmart Class II Special Permit.pdf 13-01030ii-Submittal-Peter Ehrlich.pdf 13-01030ii-Submittal-Emails-Midtown Walmart.pdf Motion by Chair Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence -Jones R-13-0471 Chair Sarnoff Before we begin, I just want to make a Jennings disclosure. I met with the appellants in this matter on three occasions, if my recollection is correct. I have my notes here of the times thatl met with them; probably, altogether, about an hour and forty, an hour and fifty minutes total. I met with Wal-Mart once for approximately 30 to 35 minutes. I did not take notes. Does anybody wish to cross-examine me on anything with regard to that? Okay, let's proceed. City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning): I'd like, ifI may, to make a brief introductory statement introducing what understand is going to be the next item to be heard, which PZ.18. I wanted to confirm that first. Is that correct? Chair Sarnoff Sorry? Mr. Garcia: PZ.18, the appeal for a Class II for a Wal-Mart in Midtown. Chair Sarnoff That's correct. That is where -- correct, that is where we are. Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. I wanted to make certain that that was the case. And then I'd like to simply make a couple of brief introductory remarks to touch on some points that you are likely to hear much about over the next few minutes. The item before you is a Class II Special Permit appeal for a property at address 3055 North Miami Avenue. This is within the Midtown district. You may hear references to zoning district SD-27, SD-27.2, which happens to be particularly the zoning designation for this site, or Appendix C, which happens to be the Miami 21 Zoning Ordinance appendix in which this -- these regulations are contained. I'd like to explain that the reason this is a Class II Special Permit and not a warrant, as you are more used to hearing these days, is because the regulations for this area, Midtown, are regulations that were put in place under Zoning Ordinance 11000, and so those zoning regulations still apply and were subsumed by Miami 21 when it was adopted by the City Commission. I would like then to share with you that the Class II Special Permit, as a permitting process, is very much akin to the warrant permit that you're more familiar with, perhaps. And the nature of the Class II Special Permit, in particular, as pertains to this application is as follows. Because this special permit is an administrative permit, it is issued by the Planning & Zoning Department and signed by the Planning & Zoning director, myself and it is appealable to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and the decision of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board is appealable to this body. In this particular case -- again, just anticipating some things that you may hear as testimony today -- the Class II Special Permit, although not required to be referred to the UDRB, Urban Development and Review Board, was in fact referred to the UDRB. The UDRB is an advisory committee, and it is advisory to the Planning & Zoning director, which means, quickly, that their advice or recommendations can be taken into consideration, and we certainly do that, but can be incorporated in part or set aside if we find them not to be consistent with applicable ordinances, so we have that privilege as part of our review. I will tell you as well that, once again, although not required to do so in this particular case, because we were, from the very beginning, aware of the fact that this would be a very controversial item, we, from the very beginning, held various public meetings -- andl want to emphasize 'Public meetings, " not 'Public hearings" because no public hearings were required. So we held various public meetings with neighborhood stakeholders, with the developers, with some who were opposing the project or had questions about the project, countless meetings, really, and very well attended, in which a very vigorous debate was had; andl'm here again to assure you that every bit offeedback we received in every one of these meetings was certainly taken to heart and incorporated into our decision. I should emphasize as well that there were no variances required. There were no other special permits required. The sole permit needed for the proposal that is before you today was the Class II Special Permit. And would like to tell you as well that as part of our findings, prior to issuing the Class II Special Permit, these findings include the fact that the project, as presented and as approved, is fully in compliance with all applicable regulations in the Miami Zoning Ordinance. I say this because you are likely to hear from the appellants that some particular provisions were not met and that that makes the document faulty. We certainly dispute that, andl'm certainly happy to provide testimony to that effect. A couple of more matters. The item was referred to NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team), as we customarily do, and certainly NET was very involved -- the Neighborhood Enhancement Team of the City ofMiami was very much involved in communicating to the stakeholders the nature of the item and addressing any concerns to the extent that they could or referring other concerns to us to the extent that they had to. The UDRB, City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 the Urban Development Review Board, heard the item twice. In the first instance, they continued the item and had some feedback to provide in items that they would like to see revised or reviewed, which we did. In the second instance, they voted to recommend denial. I emphasize "recommend" denial, andl say "recommend, " because, again, they are an advisory body. And with that recommendation for denial, the specified items that they were not satisfied with and that should be revised or amended, we took that advice, and we worked with the applicants to ensure that those items were addressed appropriately, and they were. There are findings to that effect in the Class II Special Permit. Lastly, I will tell you that the review process for this particular proposal took approximately two years, andl am proudly rounding down, not rounding up. In those two years, the project came a long way, and we started with a project that we had some reservations about, and we finished with a project that we are very proud to have signed off on, andl want to emphasize once again we find complies with all applicable regulations and therefore was deserving of our approval. Lastly, I'll tell you that the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board heard this item on appeal, and they voted to deny the appeal; not to recommend denial, but to deny, because they had the ability to do so. And so it is today before you as an appeal of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board's decision to deny the appeal to the Class II Special Permit issued by the Planning & Zoning director. And that is all have by way of presentation. We are certainly going to be standing by to answer any questions you may have. We encourage you to do so. You'll hear much testimony today. And with that, I'd probably want to yield to the appellants, whose case it is to make -- why they find that the project is not compliant. Chair Sarnoff The appellants -- Paul Savage: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff -- you're recognized for the record. Paul Savage: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director. My name is Paul Savage. I'm an attorney for the appellants in this matter. I have law offices at 100 Almeria Avenue, Suite 220, Coral Gables, Florida. I represent individuals and business owners who have proximity to this proposed super center by Wal-Mart on North Miami Avenue. Our principle contention -- well, before I get into my presentation, I am here tonight also with co -counsel, Tucker Gibbs, and also a planning expert, Mark Alvarez; and in connection with his appearance, there's a little bit of housekeeping that my co -counsel would like to take care of. Tucker Gibbs: Good evening. My name is Tucker Gibbs, and I'm representing Peter Ehrlich, and with me is Mark Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez is an urban planner and was retained to provide expert testimony tonight. Unfortunately, he was retained last week. The -- he cannot register as a lobbyist under the City code, because he has not taken the ethics course. The ethics course was last given on November 7, I think it was, and therefore, when he was retained, he could not come in and register. What we're asking for is a waiver of that requirement. He will take the ethics course on December 5, which is the next time it is being offered. Chair Sarnoff Does the members of the Commission --? Richard Lydecker: Mr. Chair, couldl be heard? Chair Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE), you have anything you want to add to that? Mr. Lydecker: Yes, I would. Richard Lydecker, here on behalf of the appellee for Wal-Mart. This has been a matter that has been pending for two years. We've had hearing, after hearing, after hearing in this case. Everybody's been presenting their experts. Nobody has held cards on the table -- held back cards or played "hide the ball" in this case. It's all been out there for over two years. We've had our experts up there. And quite frankly, the purpose behind the ethics City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 class is that they learn the rules of the road so that when they get up and they stand and say things, they're following the rules of the road in theory. Well, you'll be deprived of that. And we would like to object, given this late date. They just retained him Friday, I'm told. Chair Sarnoff Okay. You're objecting. Mr. Alvarez, you have taken this course before? Mark Alvarez: I have. Yeah. Chair Sarnoff Sorry. Mr. Alvarez: Yes, I have. Chair Sarnoff All right, it's up to this Commission. What are your druthers? Commissioner Carollo: Past precedence has been that we allow it, so I just want to maintain fairness. I believe -- Chair Sarnoff You agree? I think we're going to allow him to testify -- to present. Ms. Mendez: However, it is his ethics problem to deal with, so he should take that course -- Vice Chair Gort: You better. Ms. Mendez: -- eventually and register, even though he's going to test fy today. This is not a free pass. Mr. Alvarez: No, I understand that. I will. Chair Sarnoff All right, let's proceed. Mr. Savage: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What we're saying here tonight, just to be perfectly clear about what we're asking for, we're not asking for a rejection of this project. We have no qualms with the applicant. We have nothing against Wal-Mart. The beginning of this code section talks about big box. And when I think of big box, I think Wal-Mart is Exhibit A. It's fantastic. Our issue is that the proper procedure needs to be followed, and this was not an application that was appropriate for administrative approval by the Planning & Zoning director by way of a Class II Special Permit. This very large supercenter that's going to go in the middle ofMidtown on North Miami Avenue is replete with variances, and it is a poster child for a Major Use Special -- a MUSP, a Major Use Special Permit. Why in the world this was not a MUSP, I'll never know. It is not an application that's in total compliance and doesn't needs [sic] public hearing as the director described. It's replete with variances. And if there was ever was a project that needed additional public hearing, this is it. I'll go in and talk about some of this. The code is very careful with many provisions saying, if you're going to do a Class II Special Permit and approve it administratively, you cannot approve variances, you cannot approve variances. It says pointblank that the Zoning administrator does not have the authority to relax the terms of the ordinance. And by the way, a variance under this code, and it's defined, is any relaxation. It's not even a breach or something along those lines. It says any relaxation of the code is a variance that needs to go to Major Use Special Permit. And the fact -- the Planning director remarked that "Oh, we had some charrettes and we had some things." We're not all up here on a throne looking down to be able to say, "Well, some other meetings happened, so it's okay." No, a particular meeting had to happen, a noticed meeting on a permit application. Chair Sarnoff Is there any issue with the fact that he is the Zoning -- a Planning director versus the Zoning director? You just showed me something that said -- you said "Zoning director, Zoning administrator. " Are you -- just -- what is your title? City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Garcia: My title, sir, is Planning & Zoning director. There is a Zoning administrator who is also a member of the Planning & Zoning Department. Chair Sarnoff Okay. And can I put a name to that person? Mr. Garcia: Certainly. Her name is Irene Hegedus, and she's here today. Chair Sarnoff Oh, so it is Irene? Okay. Mr. Garcia: Yes. Her predecessor was Barnaby Min, who is also here today. Chair Sarnoff Gotcha, okay. Mr. Savage: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first thing that's a variance in this matter is something called a liner use or an 85-foot setback. I'll get to a photo -- Chair Sarnoff Wait, wait, wait. Mr. Savage: Yes, sir. Chair Sarnoff Apparently I lost quorum. Commissioner Carollo: No, but -- Chair Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Apparently, you can't. How can you go -- how can you do this without quorum? Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) take a vote. I mean, I'll yield, but -- Chair Sarnoff I don't think you do without quorum. We're back, we're back. Mr. Savage: So you're not bored into tears by looking at code, let me show you some photos of what I'm talking about. This is an appropriate liner use. If you look at the second story of these buildings, you see there's office uses there. The whole purpose of what used to be the Midtown Overlay District and is now in Miami 21 as the Midtown West District is to interact with the pedestrian as they're walking along and they're invited -- the pedestrian's invited to use these spaces to go into the stores, to go upstairs. What we're trying to avoid is a concrete canyon. That's why we have these setbacks and the liner uses. So in this particular application, they're required to set it back or put a liner use up there. I'll show you a photo that was used in one of their presentations of the existing Target. You can see there that in the Target structure, they had to either put the liner uses that you can see in my slide or if you see -- where you get to the part where it's just naked parking garage, that is set back at least 85 feet. This is another example of the Target facility. You can see all the way around it there's liner uses or, where applicable, an 85-foot setback. You cannot have a concrete canyon; the setback is required. And if you need a relaxation of this requirement, by all means, go have a variance and go have a special -- either a hearing on the variance or a Major Use Special Permit. You cannot just get it by way of closed -door administrative approval. It's not allowed by the code. This is Wal Mart's plan. If you look, this is their second floor. You can see that they do not have the 85-foot setback and they don't have these active liner uses. These things that you see on the left, these darker areas, they're going to be back of the house, some storage, things like that. Those aren't going to be offices or other small businesses. And also, you can see that there's a break in those uses. Mr. Lydecker: Can I object at this point? I'd like to pose an objection, that if he's going to cite record evidence that he not mischaracterize the citations of record evidence. It says right there City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 that it's usable liner use, and that's what the blue is. You know, if we're going to start talking about what the evidence shows, let's talk about what the evidence actually shows, please. Thank you. Mr. Savage: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying, there is a -- there's not liner uses here, and there's a break there in the middle, and there's no liner uses, you'll see, on the north or the south end. Mr. Alvarez, my expert, is going to testify that these liner uses along Mid -- that they claim are liner uses along Midtown Boulevard are not. They're mechanical areas. That's the opposite of what Midtown is about, mechanical areas that's just not permitted. Maybe it would be appropriate in the proper variance procedure. They may find that it's okay. I'm not sure. But it's not an administrative approval. Here's their third floor. Again, 85 feet back in or offices and liner uses. They don't do that. They did put down some colored concrete and things, but you don't see offices up there. You don't see the setback that's required. What's really interesting to me about their position is they say, "Well, the walls are up, but their set" -- "the 85-foot setback is on the inside. It's on the inside." So if I'm a pedestrian and I'm walking along, I'm going to see a big wall. The fact that -- they're saying, "Well, we're never going to park a rusty Buick up against the wall, so you'll be fine." Well, that doesn't mean anything to me. I'm the pedestrian experiencing this building. I'm going to see a giant wall. The fact that there's an 85-foot setback inside, it's a ridiculous position. It's like they're saying, "We're going to put a little safety tape down and we promise to never cross it." It does not comply with the setback. Here's another rendition showing, again, they do not have active liner uses there. They don't have the setback. Going on to another variance that we identified. This code mandates certain number of loading berths total by certain number of square -- of thousands of square feet, hundreds of thousands of square feet. In this particular instance, this project fits in the 250, 000-square foot range, and it says "three berths total." This building has five. How do you get from a three berths total code to five loading berths without a variance? Three berths total, five in the project, and that's not a variance, according to my opposition. Another one we have is that the building facades need to all match each other so that there's continuity in the design. Let's go through what their facade looks like. This is their east facade that faces Midtown Boulevard. There's modernity here. There's glazing. There's steel. There's glass. It's very modern. If you look at their west facade and entrances, it's more of a stucco or brick face -- facade. I don't know if that's Mediterranean revivalist, perhaps, or some other treatment, but it's certainly different -- it's a lot different than that, and it's not a continuous building. This is their north with their entryway, and again, this is one of their own drawings. There's glass there around the corner, and then the other style with a varying roof line and it's just very distinct. I don't know how this can be characterized as a continuous design or style. Perhaps they should travel as separate buildings. Another one is blank unarticulated walls shall not be permitted for parking garage facades. You can really tell that the drafters of the code really worried about these big, you know, monolithic parking pedestals. They did not want them, and they're not present in the other buildings. So they said again you have to have liner uses and don't have blank unarticulated walls. So we go to their south elevation and there's a very long blank unarticulated wall. It does have some treatments on the ends. It has some capping with the very modern part on the far right and the more traditional part on the far left, but for hundreds of feet in the middle, it's a giant wall. They'll testin, that there is some scoring and some fake bricks that -- you know, some precast decoration there, but it's a blank wall. It certainly doesn't meet the code's requirement for architectural articulation or a liner use. This is the visual from North Miami Avenue looking up towards where this project is. My opponents make a big deal that there's a Pikes Brothers demolition business that's been there forever, and their point is "Hey, there's going to be this blank wall, sure, but it's just the Pikes Brothers. I mean, who cares. It's just Pikes Brothers there. You're not going to be able to see. We can have that there." It an interior wall, " they say. But if you look -- this was prepared by my expert. He'll talk about this -- that there's the Pikes Brothers building and there's what the Wal-Mart building will look like. The Pikes Brothers building is about maybe a story and a half there at its tallest. This thing is 60 feet or so. I mean, that is a blank, unarticulated wall. We have some loading docks that are out of code and some others. I'm going to leave some of these more technical issues to my expert, Mr. Alvarez. He's going to City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 come over. He has a CD (compact disc). He's -- he also has his own slides that he's going to show. I just hope that I've successfully framed up the law which requires if there's a variance, you cannot administratively approve it. Why is that so important? What's the public policy? So that it's not behind closed doors and that we have all of the public hearings that are required in a Major Use Special Permit. And if there was ever an administrative discretion, if there was ever a case, this giant supercenter with all of these people involved, this is -- we're not asking to torpedo this project. We're just asking for the law to be enforced. That's it. And with that, I'd like to ask my expert to please come forward. Thank you. Mr. Lydecker: IfI can go ahead and pose one objection at this time in terms of housekeeping. We're here in an appellate capacity, andl get that there's latitude. But I just heard a couple new issues that, after two years of this, they're trying to inject new issues that are not included within their appeal. So if this is going to be "let's just throw the spaghetti up against the wall and what about this and what about that? " I would respectfully request that he be limited to the issues raised in his appeal and not to be able to go on a wild goose chase here. Chair Sarnoff Well, Madam City Attorney, what is your take on this? Ms. Mendez: At this time, it's de novo, so he can be able to give information that maybe he did not list before in a prior hearing. However, he should be limited, to a certain extent, to what he presented in his appellate documents. But it is a de novo hearing. Chair Sarnoff What is the mechanism of appeal? Is there a document that he appeals? Ms. Mendez: It has been done in different ways. It could be a memorandum of law. It could be a letter with all sorts of documents and -- Chair Sarnoff Is there anything that we could look at to show what his reasons -- the stated reasons for the appeal are? Ms. Mendez: Oh, his original submission? Yes, it's part of the record. Mr. Hannon, do you have any -- do you have a copy of the original submission by Mr. Savage? Or Mr. Savage, do you have a copy you want to --? Mr. Savage: Yes. It's in the legislat -- it's got to be in your legislative package. It looks like this. It basically says -- it enumerates the code and says, "You can't have variances without going to a Major Use Special Permit." Chair Sarnoff Okay. Mr. Savage: And as the City Attorney points out, it's a de novo proceeding. Mr. Lydecker: IfI can be heard. A de novo proceeding is still limited to the scopes of the grounds of the appeal. De novo only connotes whether or not you can look at the underlying facts again, the facts that the UDRP [sic] decided in our favor; the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board decided in our favor. You could sit in de novo review on those, but that doesn't mean we go outside the scope of the appeal. Chair Sarnoff No, I agree with you. Where do you think he's gone beyond the scope of his appeal? Mr. Lydecker: He -- Chair Sarnoff You've read this, obviously; you've studied this. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Lydecker: What was most obvious was his reference to parking garages not fitting properly, which is not really what the issue was. His appeal stated that we shouldn't have five; we should be limited to three. And now all of a sudden, I'm seeing pictures up there about them not being fitted properly, which is a scaling or -- but that's never been addressed. He never had that before the UDRB. He never had that before -- Chair Sarnoff But he did bring up parking garages? Mr. Lydecker: As the numeric number. Chair Sarnoff Numeric, not height? Mr. Lydecker: Right. Chair Sarnoff So height is new to you. Okay. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to this as co -counsel? This is a public hearing, and as a public hearing, any member of the public can get up and make any argument they want to make and present evidence to that argument, and that is perfectly legitimate in this kind of administrative hearing. Chair Sarnoff Is the public hearing subject to what anybody wants to say? Ms. Mendez: The public hearing will be -- as Mr. Gibbs knows, it will be allowed but at the end, and it will be limited to two minutes per person. Chair Sarnoff So what he has said is generally correct? Ms. Mendez: Generally correct. But as Chairman, and this Commission can, you know, limit certain inforatmion if they've already heard it, if they remember it, if they want to -- Chair Sarnoff All right, I gotcha, I gotcha. Ms. Mendez: Thanks. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff All right, I'm going to let them continue, Mr. Lydecker. Mr. Lydecker: Thank you. Mr. Savage: Okay. I was just going through a segue, and I'm going to introduce Mark Alvarez, and he has materials and a CV (curriculum vitae) also. Mark Alvarez: Good evening. Could somebody in the AV (Audiovisual) switch over to the computer on this side, please? Good evening. I'm Mark Alvarez. I'm a professional planner. I was asked to review this proposal for the Wal-Mart. I was asked to review it as a professional planner with regards to how it satisfies the applicable Zoning code, which would be Miami 21 and the 627 section -- or the SD-27 section. I did that. Andl don't seem to have a screen yet. Mark Emmanuel: If we could be heard on one objection. I'm sorry; Mark Emmanuel, with Lydecker Diaz. I see they're distributing materials. I know the rules require that materials be distributed 48 hours in advance of the proceedings, any documents they're going to rely on, I believe, andl don't believe these were distributed. And also -- City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff I would tell you that Commissioner Carollo would tell you it's five days. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. Chair Sarnoff So -- Mr. Emmanuel: And -- Commissioner Carollo: Five business days. Chair Sarnoff Right. I got to tell you, I think in a quasi judicial manner, we're going to listen to the evidence and what's presented. I hear what you're saying, Mr. Emmanuel. It's pretty -- I could tell you this, it's pretty detailed, so our ability to read this very quickly would be very difficult Vice Chair Gort: It's not going to be done. Mr. Emmanuel: And will we be also allowed an opportunity to voir dire him on his qualifications? I think in the back of that package -- Chair Sarnoff If you want to voir dire on his ability to testify based on his expertise, you're right, you can do that right now. Mr. Emmanuel: Just a couple of questions, sir, ifI could. Have you ever before prepared and filed a Class II permit application for Midtown? Mr. Alvarez: I'm sorry; would you say it again? Mr. Emmanuel: Have you ever before prepared and filed a Class II permit application for Midtown in the last 12 months? Mr. Alvarez: No. Mr. Emmanuel: In the last two years? Mr. Alvarez: No. Mr. Emmanuel: In the last three years? Mr. Alvarez: No. Mr. Emmanuel: Ever? Mr. Alvarez: I have not prepared a Class II permit for Midtown. Mr. Emmanuel: Have you ever -- one of the issues raised -- been called upon to interpret and apply the provisions of special -- SD-27 with respect to loading berths, for example, for a project? Mr. Alvarez: Not in SD-27. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. Have you ever -- let me strike that for a second. Did you give testimony before the UDRB or the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) on this particular application? City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Alvarez: No, I did not. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. Have you ever been called to interpret and apply the provisions ofSD-27 with respect to application to interior lot line walls or scaling issues? Mr. Alvarez: Not to those issues in SD-27. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. Have you ever been called upon to interpret and apply the application of SD-27 with respect to the setback requirements for projects in Midtown? Mr. Alvarez: Not with respect to SD-27. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. I -- to shorten the process, I understand you have looked at, I believe, the -- have you looked at the appeal -- appellate application or letter raising the issues on appeal? Mr. Alvarez: I have, but that was not my source for my analysis. Mr. Emmanuel: And these specific provisions then cited in that appeal with respect to those seven issues all involve SD-27. Have you been called upon to interpret and apply those in any other setting before tonight? Mr. Alvarez: Yes. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. And in what setting was the last time you were asked to do that? Mr. Alvarez: I have applied the -- I have done this type of analysis for zoning analysis of various developments numerous times, probably about 50 times over career, quite a few of them in the City of Miami but never in SD-27. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. Sorry. Hold on one second. Is it fair -- I'm sorry. Mr. Alvarez: Yes. Mr. Emmanuel: I'm sorry. Is it fair to say then that you are not familiar with the application or interpretation of these rules with respect to any pending application, pending application now for Midtown? Mr. Alvarez: I'm sorry; would you -- just say it slowly and I'll --? Mr. Emmanuel: Sure. Is it fair -- Mr. Alvarez: -- a few questions. Mr. Emmanuel: -- to say you're not familiar with the application or interpretation of these rules for any pending application in Midtown? Mr. Alvarez: I am familiar with the application of these rules, and I'm familiar with Miami 21 and the application ofMiami 21, as well as the old 11000 code. Mr. Emmanuel: But the provisions of -- Mr. Alvarez: You seem to have two questions there, and I'm trying to answer. Mr. Emmanuel: I'm sorry; the provisions of SD-27 with regard to pending application. City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Alvarez: Not with SD-27. Mr. Emmanuel: Okay. No further questions. Mr. Alvarez: I seem to have a technical dif -- are we good to go? I think -- Chair Sarnoff Wait. Where is -- okay, he's here. Mr. Alvarez: Okay, thank you. If you could follow along in the books. I apologize; it's not coming up on the screen. Chair Sarnoff So you want us -- walk us through --? Mr. Alvarez: If you would. It's the same as the presentation. Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Alvarez: Anyway, I -- my first page was my qualifications. I think we've -- I've worked -- Chair Sarnoff Want to briefly put your qualifications on the record -- Mr. Alvarez: Yes. Chair Sarnoff -- because -- Mr. Alvarez: I'm -- Chair Sarnoff -- all we've heard is (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Alvarez: Yes (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff Let's hear the positive. Mr. Alvarez: I've been a planner in the state of Florida for over 20 years and the ICP from 17 or so years ago. I have a great deal of experience with zoning -- reviewing zoning code and, in fact, amending zoning code and comprehensive plans in Florida. I have reviewed developments with respect to the Zoning Ordinance. It's in the range of about 50 times, probably, several of those were in the City ofMiami -- I don't know exactly how many -- under both 11000 and Miami 21. I do other work. I am a transportation planner as well. I do corridor area planning studies, capital improvement programming, and my resume is attached to the back of the booklet. A few conventions I wanted to set out for the exhibits. Are we up? Okay. I think we have the presentation up. Let me switch. Okay. Well, I'll keep going until it's actually up. I wanted to go through a few conventions -- It's -- okay, it's up -- regarding the presentation. It's a little bit off the page. I know we have a lot of material to cover tonight. I was very careful. I wanted to not make any confusion between marks and texts that I put in the presentation and what's already there. So everything that's in this presentation is either from a public source or from the Legistar file. Any time that I want to draw emphasis, I use highlighting and a bright red line. And any time that I've added text to the presentation, it's in a gray box with red text and red arrows so it's pretty easy to differentiate from the rest of the file. There are four issues that I'd like to talk about. The first is the -- the first two are really, for me, major planning issues. And when I say that, I mean that they really go against what was intended for this district. And the first is that the 65 percent pedestrian -use frontage along North Miami Avenue is not adequate, is not met. The second is that the second story parking liner uses are also not adequate. Two technical issues, I think, and when I say "technical," it doesn't meet the code, but they are less connected to the overall intent for the district. City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Emmanuel: If we could -- ifI could object on one issue he raised. It's nowhere in the scope of the issues raised in the appeal, which is that first issue, the 65 percent pedestrian usage frontage requirement met along North Miami Avenue. This is one of the reasons why we objected early on to this interjection. Chair Sarnoff All right, so let me let him respond. Show me in your submission where you brought that up or, peripherally, however? Mr. Alvarez: When I reviewed the -- Chair Sarnoff No, no, no. I'm looking for the attorney. Mr. Alvarez: Okay. I'm sorry. Chair Sarnoff I'm not -- sorry, Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Alvarez: No problem. Chair Sarnoff I'm looking for the attorney to give me a response. Where in your October 17, 2013 appeal, you have brought to the attention of the City and, thus, the appellee this issue? I'm hoping you're looking at your October 17, 2013 appeal. Mr. Savage : I'm getting there, Chairman. Thank you. Thanks for the -- Chair Sarnoff My copy. Mr. Savage : -- opportunity. Hold on. Chair Sarnoff `De novo" does not mean you get to bring in anything you want. Mr. Savage : All right, as I look at my written paper, okay, I have boards and exhibits that were prepared and submitted as part of the record of the PZAB hearing, okay. And one of my major points of the PZAB hearing was that the UDRB had some significant major problems with this application and -- Chair Sarnoff Mr. Alvarez, I'm going to ask you a question. Mr. Savage: Yes. Chair Sarnoff In your October 17, 2013 hand -delivery appeal, do you address in any manner, shape, or form the 65 percent pedestrian use frontage requirement not met along North Miami Avenue? If you do, just point us to the section. If you don't, then tell me that "You know what; I think I addressed it in other ways." Mr. Savage: I'm going to answer. I do -- I cannot point to a textual statement in my letter appeal. However, I think it's a fair statement and a correct statement of law that everything from PZAB is part of this record, and we had other presentations, and exhibit boards, and arguments that the UDRB had major problems with this issue. One of those that's enumerated in one of the public record -- part of this record and the public record is a resolution of the UDRB. Chair Sarnoff I understand your point. Mr. Savage: Okay. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff I'm going to let you proceed. Is there -- stop for a second. Mr. Savage: Yes. Chair Sarnoff Is there any other part you want to argue is not part of the record on this slide that is showing now? Mr. Emmanuel: No, but just one quick point. When he says the UDRB, what is a part of the record is the UDRB resolution, and it only took issue with two things. He's citing to the original meeting, which was continued. They made no specific finding or ruling. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Mr. Emmanuel: And this is not among the two things they took issue with. Chair Sarnoff I gotcha. I just -- I want the other Commissioners to understand what you're saying. So your point is the 65 percent pedestrian use frontage requirement -- you're not on legal notice of that? Mr. Emmanuel: Correct. It's not within the scope of the appeal and it's not within the grounds denied -- for denial recommended by the UDRB -- Chair Sarnoff Understood. Mr. Emmanuel: -- on February 20. Chair Sarnoff Proceed. Mr. Savage: And I'll just respond. I am holding up a resolution of the UDRB that in paragraph number 2, they identified it. Whether there was a subsequent resolution that listed that or not, this was a big part of our presentation. Please continue with your presentation. Mr. Alvarez: Should proceed? Chair Sarnoff Yes. Mr. Alvarez: Let me start on the first issue, ifI may proceed with that. For me, I'm happy to present this issue, because I think it is the most important issue and it is really central to, I think, what's gone on here and what's gone wrong. In the "intent" section of 627, it talks about the intent of the district, of the SD-27 district, and it talks about the idea that what we wanted to create here was a 24-hour pedestrian environment with a mix of uses, and retail, and residential and office, and it goes on to talk about how the district regulations were designed to enhance the pedestrian environment -- it's the red underline -- and connectivity to the exiting surrounding areas by extending the City's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) through the district and that this is not only for design, but it's talking about a maximum inter -relationship with ground floor building uses, the relationship between uses. It's not just about the design or the amount of glass that's on the street if nothing's behind it. So to the -- to satisfy that -- and let me call your attention to one other thing. It's not only about creating a connected -- a pedestrian- connected district within SD-7 [sic]. This is about the impact of that district to anchor the areas around it. That's why it says "the connectivity to the existing surrounding areas." My presentation of this issue is really about Wynwood. It's about anchoring this district so it helps Wynwood and what's south of here along North Miami Avenue, the boutiques, the galleries, the new eateries and so forth. We need to establish the pedestrian connection across that to get across 29th Street or to 29th Street. So a few definitions. On the left side of the page there is the pedestrian orientation definition. It doesn't show up on the screen here. It's in your books. And that's from the Miami 21 code, and it City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 talks about a few things for pedestrian orientation, and one is that none -- again, it's not only the look, but it's the use behind there; that is a retail use, it's a public use, and that it has access. Access is critical to pedestrian orientation. A definition of active -- Mr. Lydecker: Can I object? Mr. Alvarez: I'm sorry? Mr. Lydecker: Couldl object, please? Mr. Alvarez: Yes. Mr. Lydecker: This is the second time where we're jumping back and forth between Miami 21 and the design standards. Miami 21 is not applying to a special district design. That's the code we're applying here, the design standards. Miami 21 's only going to apply to the extent of procedure. So if we're pulling out code sections here to say that we should be doing this and this and this, we're confusing apples with oranges, andl want that recognized and clear, please, right now. Chair Sarnoff Madam City Attorney, is that a correct statement of the law? Ms. Mendez: With regard to -- The best thing is the objection is noted for the record, and we can proceed. Chair Sarnoff That's not -- I can note an objection for the record. This is why you're the City Attorney, and this is where you have the tough job. You have got to advise us right now. Is Miami 21 the vehicle of procedure or is it the vehicle of substance? Ms. Mendez: For this hearing today? Chair Sarnoff Is he -- first of all, is he quoting from Miami 21 as suggested by the appellee? Ms. Mendez: As suggested by Mr. Savage's -- Chair Sarnoff I think the objection is lodged by Lydecker. Mr. Lydecker: Andl would address that also to the Planning director, because he might also be able to speak on it. Chair Sarnoff So let me ask the Planning director. Are we -- first off is what is being quoted to us Miami 21? Mr. Garcia: As mentioned earlier, the SD-27Midtown zoning designation is a vestige -- is a legacy zoning designation from Zoning Ordinance 11000. It has been included into Miami 21 through Appendix C. It stands alone. It contains any and all applicable regulations regarding any development to take place there. It is a very specific master plan district and, therefore, it is self-contained. To answer your question, all reference to design standards and guidelines should be made within the SD-27 zoning designation. Chair Sarnoff All right. So we were just being read, I believe, from 627.2.1. Ms. Mendez: Which is an appendix to Miami 21 right now. Mr. Lydecker: Right here it says that Miami 21 in the upper left-hand corner -- City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff Should, Mr. Director, I be considering substantively what he is saying, or is that not part of SD-27? Mr. Garcia: Regulations contained in Miami 21 do not necessarily apply to SD-27. In most cases, they don't. I cannot think of any cases where they do. So if the argument that Mr. Alvarez is making is based on language contained under Miami 21 not the appended "C" component of the code, if it is based on that, then it does not apply. Chair Sarnoff All right. Mr. Alvarez, do you concede that this is not part of the appendix, a part of the code? Mr. Alvarez: My understanding is that the code is taken as a whole and that it's an appendix to Miami 21. In fact, I'm using definitions, which is not actually a design standard that's in conflict with 627. It's a definition to help us understand it. Mr. Lydecker: The design standards -- Chair Sarnoff I'm going to let you have the last word. Go ahead. Mr. Lydecker: -- stand alone. They created Miami 21. They said "Okay, let's apply the design standards to the special district. We'll make themfree-standing. We'll attach them to the back of Miami 21 and we'll follow those rules. " And those were the same rules that public hearing gave out 2003, when we had about ten public hearings to create the rules of the road. So him jumping between rules changes the rules on us. Chair Sarnoff So -- Ms. Mendez: The -- Chair Sarnoff -- 627.2.1, Mr. Lydecker, is it your contention that that is not part of the SD-27? Javier Fernandez: Mr. Chair, if I may. Javier Fernandez, with Akerman Senterfitt, here on behalf of the applicant and contract seller. To clarify -- Chair Sarnoff You know, I got to tell you guys something. To answer a simple question, it has taken four lawyers -- Mr. Fernandez: Let me -- you're right. Chair Sarnoff -- and -- Ms. Mendez: Mr. Lydecker is right as he described it right now. This version, which is -- Mr. Fernandez: The pedestrian orientation -- Ms. Mendez: -- 626, was part of 11000, and it was taken -- it was done very late into 11000, and it was taken as an appendix and placed at the end ofMiami 21, so 627 is what you need to be looking at, as Mr. Lydecker described. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chair, to augment the CityAttorney's response, ifI may? Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Fernandez: Very briefly, the rules of the road, procedurally, were governed by Miami 21 under this section. With respect to the substance and definitions, the definitions of Ordinance City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 11000 apply, so we take objection to the use of the pedestrian orientation definition from Miami 21 in this context, 'cause it does not apply within the Midtown West District. Chair Sarnoff And that's my understanding of your objection. Your objection is 627.2.1, section regarding pedestrian enhancement environment, should not be considered. Now, I'm going to ask -- go ahead. Mr. Garcia: Sir, on that, let me try to clam, at least, your Planning & Zoning Department's position. The Midtown zoning designation, the Midtown District, SD-27 in this case, SD-27.2, or Appendix C, all of them mean the same thing. That body of regulations is self -referential, full stop. Procedurally, Mr. Fernandez is correct; Miami 21 applies, but this is not a procedurally issue. This is a substantive issue. Now we are here to tell you that as pertains to design standards and guidelines, those contained within SD-27 have been met, full stop again. The section Mr. Alvarez brings up, to the extent that it makes reference to SD-27, it has been complied with. We're happy to show that when the time comes. If anything else, any other interpretations are being used by him that are contained in Miami 21 and not in SD-27, those do not apply. Chair Sarnoff Then you don't agree with the objection, 'cause you're saying 627.2.1 should be read. Mr. Garcia: Hit is within SD-27; that is correct, yes. Chair Sarnoff You say "if it's within" -- Mr. Garcia: Sir, I don't have the easy reference, and here's the difficulty, Mr. Sar -- Commissioner Sarnoff, I apologize. Here's the thing: There may be a Section 6.2.7 in Miami 21 and there may be a Section 6.2.7 in SD-27. What I'm telling you is if it's not in SD-27, it does not apply. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, to clarify the objection again, ifI may? Chair Sarnoff I got you. Let's proceed. Mr. Fernandez: Okay. Mr. Alvarez: Mr. Chairman, may I just -- Chair Sarnoff And I'm going to say that it's sad on a simple issue of law, we cannot figure that out. That is really sad. Mr. Savage: No, I -- Mr. Alvarez: I -- Mr. Savage: Before we close, Chairman, ifI may interject. The item that we're appealing today, that was written by the director, discusses the governing code and what was evaluated by the director, and it says, "Appendix C, Midtown Overlay District, 6.27.2, " and happen to know that the code is broken into Midtown east, which is all the citations that go to point one, and Midtown west, where this project lies, and all the citations end at point two. It's that easy. And -- I mean, I think they need to decide -- they've written it already -- what they're traveling under. I say it's under Appendix C and 627.2 -- Chair Sarnoff I got you. We're -- Mr. Savage: -- is very clear. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff Mr. Savage -- Mr. Savage: Yes. Chair Sarnoff -- we're going to proceed because the last thing heard the Planning director say, "it met it anyways." But I'm a little disappointed that there's confusion when I think it's a straightforward question. Go ahead. Mr. Alvarez: Okay. Well, ifI can state one more sentence: `Pedestrian orientation" is a term that's used in 627, but is not defined in 627, so I'll use -- this is the only place where I use Miami 21 definitions to add clarity. I can live without it, if it's -- if there's a legal issue, but it just seems to make sense to me that if it's used -- if the terminology is used in 627, it makes sense to try to look at the same code for a definition. I'll go on, though, ifI should. Should I? Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Alvarez: Okay. Chair Sarnoff I'm going to give you guys five more minutes. Mr. Alvarez: Oh, okay. I don't thinkl can finish in five minutes with all the interruptions. Chair Sarnoff Figure out where you are. Mr. Alvarez: Okay. 627 also defines "active uses." It defines them in a sense, again, that there are not only spaces that are behind walls that are occupied, and habitable, and have transparency, but also that they have doors basically onto the street. I'll skip and we'll get to liner uses later. As we go through 627, again, to this issue, North Miami Avenue is a primary street, and as -- there are three primary streets surrounding this -- 29th Street, Midtown Boulevard, and North Miami Avenue. As a primary street, it's required for liner uses, but also what is applicable is the 65 percent frontage on the ground floor of a primary street would be designated to accommodate retail and other uses that promote pedestrian traffic. As further defined that these spaces would have -- of course, they would have access from a sidewalk along that frontage. That second paragraph does have language that says, "At least one external entrance shall be located on these streets." We could hang the entire thing on that sentence and ignore the rest of the code as a whole when there's so much language that tells us that what we really want here is a continuous chain of uses that allows people to walk down that street and brings people down that street, but what's really intended is that continuity of uses, numerous stores, actual active uses that will bring people down that street from the rest ofMidtown. The highlight at the bottom actually goes a little further and tells you what the other 35 percent may be to help clarify, and that's where you can have entrances, and lobbies, and driveways, and simple architectural treatments. So the walls, they just belong to the 35 percent, and what that results in -- andl have some pictures of the section from 36th to 34th Street along North Miami Avenue. They're a little old. Some of these stores have been replaced. But what you see is, starting from Ross, a continuous line of storefronts -- this is the same code -- each with an entrance. This is what's intended. On this case, there's actually a loading access along North Miami Avenue, and let me stop there. This continues all the way down to 31 st Street, but I use this block, because this is the block with Target. This is the block that has a big -box retail use inside of it, and six -- seven years ago, it was achieved to do this and follow the intent of the 627 code that North Miami Avenue has pedestrian frontage, a continuous line of stores that draws pedestrians down. And what you see today as you go down that street is it works, and it works for the Wynwood area, because if you go from 36th Street to 31st Street, on the west side, it's all filled in with retailers, it's all changed. As soon as that pedestrian block ends where the site is proposed -- where this proposal is sited, it's the industrial again, and then the rest of the City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Wynwood south of 29th Street tries to struggle, because it's changing the industrial uses to retail, and boutiques, and so forth. And the same code and the same project has an entirely different treatment on the east side. The very same language of this code, okay, for another primary street, for Midtown Boulevard produced this. Very attractive as well. And in this case, when you look at the floor plan for the liner uses on the east side, we have seven stores -- seven doors that I counted. So the same code, same ideas. In this case, we had what we intended, but on the west side, on North Miami Avenue, we have what looks attractive, what looks like a variegated structure, what looks like different stores, but, in fact, is only two places. This is the diagram that they provided. The orange is the -- is what they're -- what they're proposing is the 6 -- part of the 65 percent liner frontage. They say -- it says in the proposal on that sheet that of the 450 feet of frontage, or 453, depending on what sheet you look at, 65 percent is 292 and a half feet, and that they provided 299. But if you look, some of that is into these gray areas, and the gray areas are retail -support areas. The retail support, which is blue; the yellow, which is vertical circulation, that doesn't count for pedestrian -oriented frontage, and in fact, since we're really not supposed to use these walls down here on this -- that Wal-Mart frontage that is retail, but it has no doors, it has no access. It's just a wall. If we only look at the two places where there's access, we have 83 feet up at the northwest corner where the main entrance to Wal-Mart is, so that should be counted. The next place would be the vision center, which is about 68 feet of frontage, which has a door. And so, in total, we only have 151 feet of pedestrian -oriented frontage along North Miami Avenue. That's 34 percent instead of 65 percent. And quite honestly -- andl think it's quite wrong to do so -- even if these blue areas on the south part, the Wal-Mart walls that are against the street but have no access, even if we included those, we still only come up to 52 percent. There's no way that this frontage along North Miami Avenue meets the criteria to provide 65 percent pedestrian -oriented frontage along that street. Issue two -- and I'll go through these a little faster because these have been mentioned before -- is about the two-story parking liner or setback -- I'm sorry; the second story liner or setback for the parking garage above. Midtown Boulevard and North Miami Avenue, again, are both primary roads, and they are supposed to have liner uses on all parking structures is what Table 627.2.7 says; liner uses on all parking structures. And then it's further elaborated in Section 627.2.12, that what liner uses are, and we -- I had from the definitions from 627 before that said that those liner uses are pedestrian oriented, that they're active, that they have to be habitable. And what we have are, again, we have a great deal of retail support and, in some cases, for example, the retail support that's in the northwest corner of the Wal-Mart is fine. It's a good use, it's very active, because it's very clear that that's where their escalators and where you come in from the garage and there seem to be some offices at that location. The other blue areas, we don't know what they are. We don't know if they're back from storage or what. They may not qualifi, to be the type of liner that was intended for this street. Clearly, the yellow area is not. And then there are the open areas, and the open areas, based on the definition of "garage," which again, I would have to go back to Miami 21, but I think we all commonly understand that a garage includes not only -- Mr. Lydecker: Objection. We're now talking about Miami 21 again, and if we all agreed on one thing, it was that Miami 21 design standards do not apply to what is in the design standard here. Mr. Alvarez: I can go -- Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Savage: Look, we're going to put on our version of the code. This is -- these aren't facts. These are explications of the code. They're going to disagree, soI look forward to jumping up every time they say something about the code that don't like. It's -- this is a quasi judicial proceeding. We're not down on Flagler in circuit court. I understand he has to make his record, but I'm not going to be jack rabbit up here every time they make a point. This is our -- this gentleman has been proffered as an expert. He's read the code. He has his opinions. I understand they disagree with them. City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Lydecker: Shouldn't we be like using the rules that apply? I mean, if those are the rules for the design district, that's what we ought to be talking about. Chair Sarnoff All right, Mr. Lydecker. Is he citing Miami 21, Mr. Planning Director? Mr. Garcia: I believe he is. Chair Sarnoff Okay. So every Commissioner should now be on notice that what they are alleging, based on our Planning director's estimation, is not the subject that we should be considering; is that fair? Mr. Garcia: To the extent they mention Miami 21, that is completely correct. Chair Sarnoff And just so it's clear, Mr. Savage, you have two minutes to commence. Mr. Savage: Fine. In response to that, look -- Chair Sarnoff I wouldn't waste my two minutes on it. Two minutes. Mr. Savage: Okay. I'm going to let my -- Chair Sarnoff Mr. Clerk, I know you're engulfed in a very good conversation. Can you put two minutes on the clock? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, sir. Chair Sarnoff Use it wherever you want. Mr. Alvarez: Thank you. I'll try to wrap this point up. I think it's a common understanding, and you can clarify that with your Planning director, that parking garages include all pedestrian access, vehicular access, ramps, aisles, et cetera. The issue here is that there are pedestrian access locations, one of them which is a dead end at the southeast corner of the garage, which are coming into that wall that should be liner uses, putting eyes on the road for security. More importantly, on the east side, there's this large gray area, which is a mechanical space, clearly not pedestrian oriented, and in fact, not really a habitable space. While that wall looks attractive, it's covered in the current wall of glass. It's not what was required in the code for a actual active use up there. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Alvarez, this is a warning. Mr. Alvarez: I'm out of time? Chair Sarnoff You have two more issues to address and one minute to do it. Mr. Alvarez: Okay. Fortunately, I think they've been addressed, so I'll just -- for the record then, I'll just put them on the record. I think that there are technical issues that the parking that's located within the setback -- and I'll just go to the picture -- on the Northeast 31 st Street side, that does not require -- that does not meet the code requirements strictly, and issue four is the loading berth requirements, andl know -- commonly understand that the loading berths are often minimum requirements. However, the way this code was written, it says a number, and the number is three. It doesn't say a minimum; it doesn't say a maximum. And if we're sticking to 627, that's what it says. And in fact, there were five berths provided; four for the Wal-Mart on the first floor; one on the second floor for the liner uses. I guess I'll end with that. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Alvarez: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Counsel, I'm going to give you 30 seconds to sum up. Mr. Savage: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As to his mention to Miami 21, look, there's an Appendix C that is now part ofMiami 21, but it's perfectly acceptable and it's enumerated on the Class II permit that we're appealing. It is the governing law. Secondly, we've enumerated a lot of things tonight, some of them we got on -- you know, some of them we discussed at length, some of them not. I'm going to rely on my papers and my presentations for the rest of it. But my principal point in the 30 seconds that you're giving me is if any one of these things constitutes a variance, just one, just one constitutes a variance, it needs to go to a Major Use Special Permit. Doesn't torpedo the project. It doesn't -- you know, it's not final, but they need to go to the process. And if there was ever a project that needed to go to full public hearing, this is one of them, and that concludes my remarks. Thank you for the time. Chair Sarnoff Thank you, thank you. Mr. Savage: And we'd like time for rebuttal, of course. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff I will give you time for rebuttal. Does any Commissioner used to -- need to use the bathroom or anything? Stick with it? Okay. All right, you're up. Mr. Lydecker: Members of the Commission. Chair Sarnoff Go ahead, proceed. Mr. Lydecker: There once was a remarkable dream called "Midtown Miami." It was remarkable because it sought to take this 54-acre blighted land, helplessly riddled, all full of garbage and trash, and turn it into one of the nicest, outdoor, urban design shopping environments in all of Florida and something) think we should all be proud of, but that dream of Midtown Miami was not completed. It's not completed, because there's the other half of that track which sits right there. It's just riddled with trash and junk, as the rest of it did many years ago. This is my client's store. This is the completion ofMiami 21. Andl remember when I first saw that picture of the Wal-Mart store. I said to myself, I said "that doesn't look like any Wal-Mart store I've ever seen." Quite frankly, that's not what I recall the suburban, boxier sort of Wal-Mart store, but you can see what they did justfrom 30, 000 feet. They specifically designed it to meet the Midtown Miami design experience, that urban design atmosphere and you see all of the liner use outside the entire Wal-Mart. Now, appellants are claiming there's something about frontage of 65 percent versus 35 percent. I could tell you the UDRB, which they quote repeatedly, didn't agree with them. The PZAB Board didn't agree with them; wasn't even addressed by them, okay. The City planners didn't even agree with them, and we'll go through that, because were' going to call our own expert to the stand. The -- but that's a nice -looking environment that pushes pedestrian traffic toward the south where you can enjoy the outdoor liner shops, and here's another view of it. Now, the appellant's complaint here today are basically this; that notwithstanding the fact that Wal-Mart specifically hired a nationally recognized architecture firm, Cook, Denzler (phonetic) to come in here and design to the design standard of SD-27 -- and it's SD-27, they made a special district out of this. 2003, we had almost 10 hearings just to set up this special district so that then we would be able to entice developers and whatnot to come and take this 54-acre blighted land and turn it into one of the most successful shopping environments in all of Florida. We had 10 hearings. They're still asking for another hearing. We've been doing hearings since 2003. We've had another four or five hearings since then, and every hearing we've opened up to the public, and the public's had a chance to participate in it. So they're asking for you to disregard the architects; not only the architects, but your career professionals in your own Planning Department, who got with our City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 architects and said, "You know what? You've met the requirements of the design standards in Miami 21." Right. And it's not set up to have a hearing designed to be a Class II permit, so because you have all your hearings at the front end in 2003; it's all pre -designed; just need to meet the criteria. That's the process. So they say disregard your Planning Department. They also say disregard the Urban Design and Review Board. They jump up and down and they tell you, "Look, the Urban Design and Review Board had nine issues." That's a consultative process for your Planning director, right. We originally submitted to them. They had some issues. They told us they wanted to work on some stuff. We went back; we worked on that stuff. We went back again to the UDRB. And you know what? They said, "Hey, you got two things to do here: your roof and your liner use; that we want it to be usable." They threw out a word that said "we want it to be habitable." Are you kidding me? That exists nowhere. Nobody's ever said that. They said "You want it to be usable, " and we did what they said. So, basically, the UDRB, they agree with us. They had no issues with any of this. But they still want you to disregard that. Then they want you to disregard another public hearing or public meeting with the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board that took public input and discussion about the board, and they went through "A" to "Z" de novo, just like you, and said "Did we meet the zoning requirements?" And the answer was, "Yes, we did." So you've got the appellant sitting over here, and they're saying, "Hey, listen, disregard everybody else in the world, the Zoning & Appeals Board, the UDRP [sic] after they did it twice, your own professionals, our own architects; and believe us, we're on -- just two days ago -- a couple days ago they retained a land use person to come in here and give some testimony about stuff that was never even considered before, right. He's pulling out exhibits to say, "Hey, look at this exhibit. I reference in this exhibit something that somebody else might have possibly thought about, " which was never discussed before. Why? Because it's a throw -away issue, like we used to do back in the old days in court. We'd take the spaghetti, we'd throw it up against the way, and we'd say, "Look at this, and look at this, and look at this." And as we're looking all over the place, jumping one foot and to the next, what are we not doing? We're not doing -- asking the question of why we want to keep this blighted land continuing to look like this blighted land when we're looking to develop just like this, just like everybody else, and the design standards say we've met, except for now them and the speculations that, "Hey, what about this? What about that? What about this?" They've complained they want more hearings. They've had plenty of hearings. I'd like to walk through just quickly, step by step, and then I'll call our expert, Ana Gelabert, to the stand quickly to go through everything, and we'll get done very quickly. But one, they say basically, "We had a large, blank wall, " right. That southern wall is large and blank. Don't continue the same design from the other three sides of the building that are on public street, that face public street that people shop on, right; that we don't continue that design to this southern approach and that people coming up from the south will be offended by seeing this great big blank wall. Well, you know what; it's not blank, first of all. But second, they don't tell you -- you could look at their appellate brief it appears nowhere. They don't tell you that probably the most important reason why it's blank -- and it's not, but they say it's blank -- is because it's an interior wall, right. It abuts Pykes Garage. Decorating an interior wall that affronts another blank wall in a back space like that is about as useful as me going home and decorating my closet. That's what they're asking us to do. That seven foot crawl space that we voluntarily gave -- agreed to do the setback seven feet, at the request of the neighbor there at Pykes Garage, right, it's going to be sealed in. Nothing's going to be going on back there, right. That's a blank wall. So they say, "Don't worry about it. We should decorate" -- "we're going to put glass and we're going to put awnings and all this other decoration on this blank wall." Makes absolutely no sense. And you can see, they say, "Oh, well, you get this view from the southern approach, that could be visually offensive, because there's this blank wall." Well, you don't see. They don't tell you that it's -- Pykes Garage is there. Yeah, it's a very nice modern deco look, but that's what you see when you come up from the south, not my wall, which is primarily obscured through that, and you could see the other views that you see coming up from the south. And they don't -- to do that rather absurd result, near ridiculous is brought to the extreme. To do that, they try to tell you that the design standards where they're not quoting Miami 21 or the code, but the design standards which apply here, they say "not fronting walls. It does not apply." It says 627.2.1, all buildings abutting primary streets shall conform to 65 City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 percent, 35 percent rules tell you how to put the glass up, andl'll have my expert put up on the stand as well on that. But there is nothing in the design standard -- and your own staff will tell you that -- regarding decorating interior walls that don't sit on a public roadway. And think about it. It makes absolutely perfect sense. Next they say, "Well, let's ignore what the design standards say." Might have been a little confusion all along, but I'll tell you one thing we all agree with, that if the design standards for Miami -- Midtown Miami specifically address the issue, we all agree that that's what we apply, right. Why else would we have a special district? There they are. They tell you what standards we apply. They specifically named the streets that the design standards apply to, but they don't mention that in their brief or anything. And it said -- they point to other provisions. And then to accomplish that remarkable results that we should decorate interior walls, right, they delete the statutory's name from their own brief. So when the brief says -- and that's what the brief -- the code actually states. It actually states design standards, number two, building facade. They omit the term "building facade." How do you do that? Because for them to claim we should decorate an interior wall that the public doesn't really see, that's what they have to do. They have to omit parts of a statute to mislead everybody into believing that's what should apply, and they know that your Building Department knows what a building facade is, and that's something that fronts a public street. Next, they try to provide that Tracts "G" and "H" -- they didn't focus on it, but it's in their brief -- are public space for use and enjoyment of the public. They say that to apparently conjure in everybody's mind that this is park space and that there are going to be kids playing with a ball in there and that this wall is going to be visually offensive to them. Well, that's not what it is. That's not government property. That's not publicly owned. That's privately [sic] property -- private property zoned right now to be developed like anything else in Midtown Miami, right. It zoned to 60 to 120 feet. Right now the only restriction on it is a private contractual one, and ifI went out there andl looked at it, and two, you can see it's for sale, and that's the so-called for use of public use -type track of land that they're trying to tell us. Andl will tell you this. It's surrounded by a fence. Anybody using that land is going to be committing the crime of criminal trespass, right, because that's the only thing you got there. Next, they try to claim it's a featureless precast concrete wall; that it's a large, blank surface. I can't tell you how many times I've corrected them on this, but it's like anything. If they keep saying, then hopefully, they feel somebody's going to believe them. You've got scored concrete throughout the entire back wall, and if you can see the wraparounds on the left and right side, the east and west, that's all architecturally treated, right, and you can see how that lines up kind of neatly with the "G" and "H" lots, so even from the southern (UNINTELLIGIBLE). For the most part, you've got us a nice view of wraparound. They're all complaining that we're not doing what's -- nothing more than just a sealed -in alleyway. And here you can see that the treatment that we're doing, it's very nice, and you could also see corrugated steel and glass. It's a beautiful view for this area. So they start off with issues number one and two; that the south wall, they don't tell you it's a south wall; it's an interior wall. They don't tell you that the code and the design standards don't apply. They like to point to other areas of other codes that don't apply. They omit any reference to what you predominantly see when you come up north, and that's Pykes Garage. And then they delete the term "building facade" from the actual statute, and they mischaracterize Lots "G" and "H" is public space for use by the public, and then they omit that it's a blank wall. It's not. It's scored with wraparound turrets around the side, all to make everybody think that Wal-Mart is doing something they're not supposed to be doing, and that's not the case. Number three, the alleged nonconformity is a requirement that second story liner uses must be used, and the third floor parking lot is not set back 85. That's one of the issues they seem to be hopping on this time. We've complied with both, okay. First, let's take a look at this liner use. You couldn't get David Copperfield, the great illusionist himself to hide a Wal-Mart store better than these architects did, right. You couldn't do it better. You don't even see it. You don't even know you're in a Wal-Mart until you walk in the front door. All along the side is the liner use of retail shops and coffee shops that can be retail boutique for pushing all the pedestrian traffic. Then they make the argument that the UDRB said, "Well, we want that second floor liner to be usable, not just liner. " Liner -- just line it versus it's got to be usable so I guess from the streetscape you can look up and see people walking around up there. That's what they said. We heard what they City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 said. We submitted something. This is what we originally submitted to them. It wasn't liner use that was usable. We took their input. We got with the Planning director and we changed it. So now you see all the blue, that's all usable liner space. And if you look at the code and all the rules -- and here they are. I put them all up there -- these are the codes that -- look, there's a very nice intellectual argument to be made about whether or not it has to be usable or just liner. We skipped it. We said get rid of the issue. Just do it. We didn't think we needed to, but we did it to move on with the issue. So it is usable. We listened to what the UDRB. And you can see here the third floor parking level. They're trying to say that we're not set back 85 feet. Well, you could see the red line, the red dotted lines through there. Everything is tucked back 85 feet, and what we have is a six-foot wall around the -- the facade itself from the parking continues up an additional six foot, and as you're going to see in a moment, we took 54 of these Montgomery palm trees, right, and we're planting them around the circumference of the entire building to give it like that oasis like effect so when you look at it from the streetscape -- and that's the most important thing, right -- that's what you see, so we're tucked back, so all spaces are back behind 85 feet. Next nonconformity is parking garage. They misleadingly -- once again, they say this -- they said we didn't conceal the rooftop parking. That's not correct. You notice that what they did is they didn't reference the actual design standard for uncovered parking. We are uncovered parking. Nowhere in their brief do they reference the rules for uncovered parking. Why? Because they don't want you to see them. The rules for uncovered parking specifically provide that you got a concealed rooftop with, one, creative; two, colored surfaces; and three, landscape. The intent is to conceal rooftop parking, so you use creative colored surfaces and landscape. That's how you do it. The code -- the design rules tell us to do it exactly. This is what we gave the UDRB, right. There wasn't any landscaping, or creativeness, or color to it, and they -- one of the things they said to us is, "Hey, you got to do something with that." They didn't like that. They agreed with everything we did. Those were the two things. So as a collective body, they agree with us. They just said do these two things. So we thought we were actually good stead when we provided this to them, because this is the neighborhood. This is 31st Street, and 31st Street, you can see, right across the street, there's absolutely no green, there's no treatment, no color, no anything. They didn't really raise this, but I'm going to just hit it really quick. I think they backed off of this issue now, UDRB did. I'm going to jump ahead and say basically that the color -- you can see what we did -- around the sides, the green trees, it becomes darn near park -like when you put all of the palm trees around the side. We're the only one in the entire neighborhood that did it. At least almost 40 percent of all of the concrete up there is treated, and it's a beige color. It breaks it up, and you can see, this is a side view that really sort of -- that side view that shows you this height of all the trees. They're all going to be full size. So you get this -- you're going to have 4,000 square feet of trellis up there. You're going to have overhangs. You've got a total of about 150 trees and plants, so safe to say we've made it very park -like. Alleged nonconformity number 5, they claim that -- and this is one of their claims, Northeast 31st Street. They keep saying this, hoping that if they say it enough, it'll become true, but it's not. They say the governing design standards could not be more clear; that there's a required 10 foot setback floor, okay. I agree with them; it is clear, right. And we wrote this terrific legal argument to explain it, and then as you do with most legal arguments, you try to boil it down to its most simplest term, right, andl kept boiling it down to two words. I got the whole legal argument summed up in two words. Those two words are very clear: Not applicable, right. Here is your setback requirements, and Ana will address it. But one of the things they do is -- and it's like they're trying to confuse all the issues, so they're pulling out the setback requirements for 34th Street and say, "Oh, look, we're going to get this canyon effect. Oh, look." But they don't tell you that the code -- the ordinance that actually applies here says -- and it says it right there -- Northeast 31st Street, mid -level setback, not applicable. Black and white. Alleged nonconformity number 6: loading berths. They complain we have five loading berths. We should only have three, they say. But what they don't tell you is that the rules not only have they always been interpreted; they have also been interpreted uniformally [sic] throughout this area of southern Florida. Ana will talk to you about Coral Gables. Everybody does that, because you don't want to have a maximum number of loading berths. That makes no sense, 'cause all you do is backup the -- you backup your trucks on the roadway. This is what you don't want, right. It City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 makes absolutely no sense if you're having trucks not get straight into the loading bays and sitting out on the street where people are trying to enjoy a coffee, a cappuccino, walking around and having that urban streetscape experience. And here you can see what we did. You pull -- that's the actual loading bay, and the loading bays are set up like this giant loading berth that pulls down like a bat cave. You pull this down right behind the truck, so everything that goes on back there is shielded, it's quiet, it's clean, and so you don't have that loading bay feeling. And you can see all the trees that we've parked around there, as well as the rooftop. This is what you don't want to do. And if you can see that this is also the way it's been interpreted uniformly in Midtown Miami, uniformly. You see JC Pennys [sic]. They had less space than us; they got approved for five loading bays, and they had 108, 000. I think a total in for their areas is about 140, 000. So for less square footage, they're using five loading bays. And that's just, again, the way everybody's interpreted it. And then it's the same thing for Target. Target, the whole operation over there is about 320,000 feet. We're about 190, 000. They got 320, 000 feet. They have 11 loading bays, okay. None of this was done through variance. None of this done other than by a Class II permit. Next, alleged nonconformity number 7, and this is the variance from the streetscape design. They're complaining here about parallel parking. This is what the written record is and this is what everything that was actually appealed to you, all these topics that we're hitting right now. They're saying, on 31 st Street, "How dare you try to eliminate parallel parking because it's supposed to require substantial pedestrian buffers." And they say the design standards require two lanes of traffic with two lanes of street parking. That's just not true. Again, they keep saying it. It's not true. 'Cause if you look at the design standard itself -- and we all agree it's the design standards that apply. It says it right there. It says, look, 31 st Street, it's only recommended. And where the code said it was required, it actually says required, right. Twenty -Ninth Street and Buena Vista Avenue, they use the word "shall." They know how to use the word "shall." There it is. That's exactly what it says, but they tell you it doesn't say that. Well, here's the other thing they fail to tell you, that when they say, "Hey, eliminate the parallel parking that you have there, " they don't tell you that it's the director of Public Works that decides that, right. He's the one that says "Look at the road and what goes on with the road, " right. What is the turning ratio for a truck to get into 31 st Street and then get into the loading bays where the loading bays are? That is a Public Works director question, and he's the one that answered, because even per the code itself it says exactly, "The Public Works director is the ultimate authority for anything street related, " and then it says, I quote: "All exterior space shall conform to the following standards, subject to the approval of the director ofMiami Public Works. Denial of these requirements shall not constitute a variance from the ordinance." Well, he decided it. That's not even something for the Planning Department to decide because they know that -- and you could see what it is. You can see that this 31 st Street that they're talking about, which the setback requirement is not what they're claiming because they're looking at -- I don't know what they're looking at, but that's not what the actual code says. This 31 st Street, actually so you can see our loading bays in the red there. It says "truck entrance." And then you see that's where the cars come in, and then you can see where on the other side of the street ofMidtown, that's where the other cars come in, and it's a secondary street. That's where you get all of the service in for the primary streets and for the primary stores. They get in through the secondary streets. Makes far more sense because -- and you can see how nicely we treated that area, and -- but let's be honest here. That's not really what they're arguing about. I mean, really, what do they care about parallel parking on 31 st Street, other than just to make some abstract argument. But the truth is, what they're trying to do is they're trying to get somebody to say, "Hey, you got to have parallel parking there, " when it's only recommended, because they know that the Public Works director is saying you've got -- you can't have parallel parking there. And what will happen is you won't be able to access that lot from 31 st Street, and if you can't access that lot from 31 st Street, the two streets on the side are primary streets. That's North Miami and Midtown Boulevard, and the bottom -- remember, Pykes Garage is down there. So if you can't get in in any of these four ways, the only in their mind we're going to start getting goods into the location is going to be airlift. That's how we're putting our stuff in there. I'd like to call Ana Hilabrent [sic] to the stand, please. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Ana Gelabert-Sanchez: Good evening. Unidentified Speaker: And just to confirm, we gave you the electronic presentation in hard form. It's in the packets in front of you, together with the response we filed also to their seven points. Yes, sir. I forgot to bring it up at the beginning. Mr. Lydecker: Ms. Gelabert, can you please describe your professional background briefly? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I have a Bachelor's of Architecture in Fine Arts from the Rhode Island School of Design. I have a Master's of Landscape Architecture from Harvard University. I have been a urban planner for the last 25 years. And I'm a member of the certified -- American Certified Institute of Planners. I am also currently a visiting critic at Harvard University, the planning program, and I'm a Harvard Loeb fellow. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. And can you describe your professional employment? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. I was for the -- three years ago, I was the Planning director for the last -- for the 12 years, 1998 to 2010. Prior to that, I -- the remaining 12, 13 years back, I was with the Planning Department as an urban planner, as an urban designer. And presently, I am a -- consulting. I have my own firm, Gelabert-Sanchez, and as I said, I'm also teaching at Harvard University. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. And in your prior capacities and employment, did you have opportunities to compare codes, and make determinations, and make recommendations concerning whether or not it met code compliance? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Absolutely. Part of the responsibilities that I had under the Planning Department -- andl should have mentioned them -- it was land development, and land development is the division that looks at all the permits that go through the City and the Planning Department, and this one being one. Mr. Lydecker: And how about the design standards unique to Midtown Miami? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. Part of the Planning Department, we review, as you have in front of you today, the Class II Special Permit, which is on that one the same as it would have been in the Major Use Special Permit under 11000 and now Miami 21. We do look at design standards, and that is the responsibility of the Planning Department, and it's the one that I had under my purview. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. Did you have an opportunity to review issues number 1 and 2 in the appellant's brief concerning specifically large blank surfaces and continuous design and --? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I did. Mr. Lydecker: Did you form an opinion? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I did. Mr. Lydecker: Can you tell this Commission what that opinion is? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: That the project -- the Wal-Mart project meets it. It is very clear that if you look under the Section 627.2.8, there is a -- they make a very clear distinction in what is a primary and a secondary street. This one -- it has two: It's Midtown and it's the North Miami. The wall -- the south wall that they make reference to is not a primary. It is an interior wall. Even when you look at the chart, it actually says "interior wall." So there is a category for such City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 a thing as an interior wall, and this one is not. That is why the -- none of the regulations that they presented are applicable. Having said that, I would just like to add that they're not applicable; yet, in the section of design standards 2.4 under "building continuity," they do ask that there's continuity on the parapets, on the rooftop, and this project does meet it, even though they don't have to. Andl would also like to add, because it was brought up, the continuity as far as the style -- there's a difference between style and architectural elements. These standards call for architectural elements. It talks about what should happen on the low, what should happen in the middle, what should happen on the upper. It talks about what they recommend, what is discouraged. It does not prohibit, but style is certainly not one that these regulations regulate, andl just wanted to make that distinction. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. And as to alleged nonconformity number 3, there was a statement regarding requirement for second store liner uses must be used, as claimed by the appellants. Did you have an opportunity to review that and form and opinion? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I did. Mr. Lydecker: Can you tell this Commission what that opinion is? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: they made it -- andl just would like to take two seconds, because there was a conversation and some questioning of -- back and forth of liner uses versus one code and another. I would like to read again -- andl know in the presentation, it was stated, but would like to kind of start my comment with this. If you -- the definition of "liner uses, " on the standards, the ones that we're reviewing and on the ones the Planning Department had to review them, it says, "Storefronts and building fronts that conceal a larger use from view, such as a parking garage." It makes a clear differentiation between "active uses" and "liner uses." And when it talks about active uses, it talks about ground level and it talks about a percentage. They meet it. On the ground level, they meet it. On the second level, they do have a liner use. They do have a building front that conceals a larger use from view. They do that. And on the third level, they -- there's a section in these standards and in the code -- it's 672.2.12 -- that it actually says that the upper level parking facilities that do not incorporate liner uses -- and that would be on the third level, not the first, not the second -- shall be set back no less than 85 feet and shall not exceed a height of 50 feet. They meet it. If you look at the -- one of the last drawings that was sent on the presentation where the red dotted line was, that's the 85. There's no parking. And in addition to that, the 50 feet, the building is 48, so they meet it. On the second floor, I would -- also would like to add, which also was said, it is not required. Having said that, this project, Wal-Mart did put the usable space on the second floor. Mr. Lydecker: And let me ask you this: There's a math calculation that they were referencing regarding 65 percent linear footage and 35 percent. Did you do any numbers, calculations that you could share with the Commission? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I did. Again, they meet it. And I'll go -- and this -- I believe you probably have the plans in front of you, but if you would bear with me. On the North Miami side, on ground floor uses where 65 percent is required, it's -- that would be 292 feet, they're providing 299 feet. On the ground floor transparency which was -- it's a 50 percent requirement, they're supposed to show 220 -- they're showing 220 -- I'm sorry. They should show 226; they are providing 260. So in both instances, they are providing more than required. On Northeast 31 st Street, the same is -- 50 is required; they're providing 254 when only 244 would be required. On ground floor uses, same thing; 30 percent is required because it's a secondary street. A hundred and forty-five are required; 147 are provided. So in both instances -- andl -- and these are referenced in the architectural drawings. In both instances, they not only meet the requirement; they exceed the requirement. Mr. Lydecker: And let me jump ahead. You did touch the third floor. So the third floor is set City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 back at 85 feet per code; is that correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Correct. It's the -- 85 is behind -- is whatever is not behind a liner, the third floor, and they do have the 85, and that is the drawing where it shows -- there's two drawings, the architectural, but the one that shows the rooftop with the landscaping around it, you'll see the red line that was shown on the presentation, that is 85 feet back. Chair Sarnoff Is -- can I ask a question? Mr. Lydecker: Sure. Chair Sarnoff Is the 85 feet from the use or is it 85 feet from the building? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: If the building is within -- the parking is the one that cannot be within that 85 feet. Chair Sarnoff So the structure of the building -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The structure can go up. It's the parking the one that cannot be. Chair Sarnoff The use is what you're saying is the -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Is the 85, and that's the way that it has been always interpreted. Chair Sarnoff Is it says that way in the code? Does the code say 85 feet of use? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Of the -- it says -- I think it says parkingfacility and that it -- but it has always been interpreted that way, that it is -- Chair Sarnoff So you've always interpreted the facility as the use thereof? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It's the parking, correct, that you have to -- and if you look at the intent, the intent actually says that the parking that has to be landscaped and it's one of the things, and it's -- the first line, it says from street level." So always the concern was how it's seen, that edge. So it's not so much that it's coming; it's the edge. And there is a difference -- and that -- anyway, that's the intent, to answering the question. So, yeah, ifyou want the parking not having the cars kind of overlooking with their noses out but actually within, then they landscape, and that's why you want that setback. Chair Sarnoff And my second question, ifyou don't mind. Mr. Lydecker: Sure. Chair Sarnoff Is the word "habitable" at all in SD-27 with regards to the second story? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Absolutely not. Chair Sarnoff So that your only concern with the second level is just that you don't see -- it's just a way of making something look apparent? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Exactly. And not only that, ifyou want to even go deeper, if you look at standards -- I believe it's the Section 5.1 or Section 5 -- it actually -- and ifI -- ifyou could -- I'll read it to you, because it's clear this is not an assumption. Here, it says, "Whenever possible, light second -story windows to imply human presence and counter the appearance of desertion." So, clearly, when you look at the standards in the code, it talks about the ground level, and that's City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 why I said it really makes a differentiation between what's active and what's a liner use in Section 627, which is what we're reviewing right now. Chair Sarnoff So even by reading that -- and there's no implication that you could even find expressly that would suggest habitable? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Absolutely not. Chair Sarnoff Any other parts of our code suggest habitable space? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Not in this code that you have in front of you while you're reviewing the Wal-Mart. Chair Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in Miami 21 (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: In Miami 21 you have habitable. Chair Sarnoff But not in this code? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Not in this code. Chair Sarnoff I'm sorry. You can continue. I didn't mean to interrupt. Mr. Lydecker: No. I thought they were all very good questions. Chair Sarnoff I'd say that, too, to somebody that was judging me. Mr. Lydecker: Then let me repeat it. Ma'am, next, I direct your attention to issue raised, number 4, by the appellants, that the parking roof the parking garage roof -- I know you touched on it a little bit, but did you have an opportunity to consider whether or not the parking garage roof, as set forth now, Wal-Mart plans, does that comply with the Miami design -- Miami 20 -- Miami designs? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The standards comply with the Midtown -- Mr. Lydecker: Midtown, oh. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- special district. Yes, it does. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. And can you explain why? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The Section 7, it calls for making an attractive -- like I said a second ago -- from the street level; it does. Is the landscaping that it has -- that is screening on the upper level, but it also adds that it should be creative color surfaces and landscaping, and in this project, it actually has include the different color pavement, it has included palm trees and then the shade trees, so yes, it does comply. It meets the requirement. Mr. Lydecker: Now, let me direct your attention to alleged nonconformity number 6 by the appellant, the loading berths. Apparently, the complaint is that we got five; we were only supposed to get three. Did you form an opinion as to that, ma'am? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Lydecker: And could you describe to the Commission what that opinion is? City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: That it has always been interpret that it's a minimum, so they meet it. The minimum would be three, but they can put four, they can put four [sic]. Usually -- and this has always been interpreted, that why the code would ask for minimum safeguard to make sure the letter of the law is met. Now, if someone wants to put more, it has never been -- if it would be something that the City wouldn't have want, it would have said "maximums." It does not say that. And when I was reviewing it, every time the projects had the loading inside, that's something you wanted. You did not want it on the street. You actually wanted it inside, so if it's something that can facilitate the business but is not really conducted outside, it was something that the City would also -- the Planning Department would see favorably. Mr. Lydecker: The -- did you consider what the -- did you have an opportunity to contact some of the surrounding areas, such as Coral Gables and Miami Beach, and see if they have similar code provisions that they interpret in similar ways as the City ofMiami's Planning Department is? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: They do. The municipalities will be looking at it as always as a minimum as well. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. Next, I'd like to direct your attention to alleged nonconformity number 7, the variance from streetscape, and that is apparently on that 31 st Street, that there is to be some form of parallel parking and they're claiming a violation of the design standards and the code. Can you please address that? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. I would like to just clam, andl think it has been said several times, but 31 st is a secondary, and when you look at the intent of what a secondary street is, it's actually meant, andl quote, "service the building and provide some ground floor activities." But it's to service the building. And when you look at the whole intent, there's the primaries, and that one is the one that should connect the grids to make sure the service goes on. So, clearly, it's a service road. But if you look at page 20 of the design standards, it also says it recommends; it does not require the parallel parking. It actually even adds that it also recommends small to medium truck loading area is recommended, so clearly, it is anticipated that this would be a service road. But having said that, I would just also to add that they did -- do meet on the other -- on the 30 percent of active uses on the ground level, they meet that. They do have the six-foot walkable area that the code requires. In some cases, they have a little bit wider. They have a five-foot fit landscape berth, where four is required, and they do provide palms and shade trees on 31 st Street, so they have not only -- they have met the letter of the law and the standards providing that a service for the loading, but they also have the landscape and they have made it pedestrian friendly. Mr. Lydecker: Were you also able to consider the impact of the director of Public Works control over the operation of the roadway versus application of design standards? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. The director ofPublic Works -- I looked at it. And, yes, the director ofPublic Works is the one with the jurisdiction on design of this permit, not the Planning director. Mr. Lydecker: Now, you heard the appellants making certain claims regarding 34th Street and whether or not there was a second level setback in that area. And they were saying, "Well, look at 34th Street. Why do they get the setback at that mid -level and then, all of sudden, use, on 31 st Street, an entirely different street, are not able to?" Did you hear that? Did you make an opinion on it? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I did. Mr. Lydecker: Can you describe to the Commission your understanding of what they were trying City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 to claim and what your opinion is? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There's two different streets: 31 st and 34th. Thirty -First is secondary. When you look at the table, it says -- when you look at midlevel setback, it says "not applicable." When you go to upper level, it says "not applicable." When you go to 34th, 34th is a primary. Therefore, the other standards apply on their setbacks. So when you go to the section, it says midlevel, it says 15 feet above 20 feet on the midlevel. So, clearly, the issue here is basic; it's one is a primary and the other one's not; therefore, one requires setbacks and the other one does not. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Lydecker, I'm going to give you two minutes to finish up. Mr. Lydecker: Two minutes and we'll be finished. There was also some claims regarding in issue number 1 in the slide presentation. I'll hand them to you and if you can describe it -- I'll describe it for the record: North Miami Avenue pedestrian use frontage, issue 1, and then it was also talking at the pedestrian use frontage. Did you consider that, and did you make an opinion as to whether or not that was a valid argument? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I looked at it, and it is not a valid argument, because we go back to the concept of active versus liner. When you go to this drawing that was shown -- andl looked at the architectural drawings -- on North Miami, on the ground floor uses, 65 percent is required. They're providing 292 feet -- I mean, they are -- requested -- required 292, and they're providing 299. In the issue of transparency, 50 percent is required on North Miami. Two twenty-six is required, and they are providing two sixty, so this would be on this drawing. So clearly, on the ground level, they are providing the active ground level uses that the code asks for. The drawing below is the second story, which is the one we said. It -- the line conceals, and they are concealing. But even though they're not required under the code, they have put usable space, which is the dark blue, so they didn't have to, and they've met the requirement. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Lydecker, what you handed them is what? Mr. Lydecker: Those are the slide presentation that was handed to the Commissioners. I just tore out two pages that would be worth following up. Chair Sarnoff From opposing counsel? Mr. Lydecker: Opposing counsel's slide presentation. Chair Sarnoff Okay, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) make sure. So I want everybody -- I wanted the Commissioners to know you handed them what they presented to us. Mr. Lydecker: Correct. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Mr. Lydecker: That is what you have. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And on the second, which is the North Miami Avenue pedestrian use, it would be the same. And looking at what was required on the ground level, they meet the requirement; the same with the transparency, they meet the requirement. Something was mentioned that there were no doors. There are doors on the architectural plans, so again, they do meet the active ground, they meet the transparency, they have -- they meet the letter of the law. They do meet the standards, and they meet the -- Section 6.7. Mr. Lydecker: And to your understanding, the Wal-Mart application, is it properly issued and you haven't seen any difficulty with it? City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The application was issued properly. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion? Mr. Lydecker: Quick conclusion. I'll say this -- and thank you for the -- Chair Sarnoff (UNINTET,T IGIBT ,F) not to move you along. Mr. Lydecker: I'll move it along. I actually -- first time I ever broke into a sweat giving one of these presentations I was moving so fast. Next time, I'm bringing roller skates. But that said, I will say in all candor, that's a uniquely designed store. Nobody else at Midtown has done the amount of hearings that my client has done. It's been specifically designed. Everybody in this universe says we comply. We've done all the hearings, all the input, everything, every step of the way. We finally proved that we've done everything that's required of us to do, and here we are at the last part, the last appeal before we go into court. We would respectfully urge that this application -- that the -- that your decision of the City's Planning Department -- Chair Sarnoff Just put it up here. Mr. Lydecker: -- that their determination to issue the Class II permit is proper in all regards and that the application be denied. And thank you very much, everybody, for your time. Chair Sarnoff Mr. Savage or Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Sarnoff, I wanted to cross-examine the expert witness; didn't have the opportunity because it went right into it. I have -- just got three questions. Chair Sarnoff Go ahead, go ahead. Mr. Gibbs: Hi, Ms. Gelabert. How are you? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Doing great. Mr. Gibbs: Good. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: I have a couple of questions for you. You had mentioned regarding the liner uses and the garage -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that the garage facility is parking spaces; is that correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: What -- the standards, the word, ifI recall, it says, 'facilities." The question was: "Does the 85 feet have to be of -- the wall of the structure, itself of the building, back 85?" to what answered the Chairman: "No, it does not. The 85 is the parking area where the cars are parked." Mr. Gibbs: So what you're saying is within the setback -- let's just refer to that 85 feet as the setback. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Within the 85 feet. Mr. Gibbs: Within the setback, you can have drive aisles and you can have the ramps and everything else, so the setback does not apply to those aspects, parts of a parking garage? City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would have to -- is the -- each -- is -- the parking area, the one that cannot be visible; therefore, it has to be the 85 feet back. Mr. Gibbs: So -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: So I would say, yes, it would, but -- Mr. Gibbs: -- I just want to be clear. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Gibbs: So you're saying that the ramps and the drive aisles are -- can be within the setback? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would have to look at the code. Mr. Gibbs: Okay, 'cause that's -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would have to look at the specific of the code, but the issue here is, is it visible from the outside; has it respected the 85 or it's back? And the answer was yes. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. I'm just trying to find a -- just a very simple question; again, a lawyer. A setback, if those parts of the facility are allowed within a setback. Next question, 'cause I just -- and I'd like to know the basis for your opinion on that, ifyou could give me some basis in the code, some basis in planning practices, and you can think about that while I ask you the next question; is that all right? Or you want me to just wait and you can -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: For the question that you wanted to -- Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. I just wanted to know the basis of your position that the parking -- is it just what you just said? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We usually look at the plans, and when there is 85 on the setbacks that we had -- or what we have is in order for visually that it doesn't impact. Mr. Gibbs: Right, but when it talks in the code about setback, it doesn't talk about that. It just says the setback is 85 feet. So my question is a very basic one: Are drive aisles and ramps allowed in a setback, in a garage? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would like to see what it says, you know, what it specifically says. Mr. Gibbs: In your experience as the Planning director in the City ofMiami, have you ever approved a garage -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: If there -- Mr. Gibbs: -- that had -- excuse me -- have you ever approved a garage that has drive aisles and ramps within the setback? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There has to be -- I would have to -- it would depend how visually how the project was done -- Mr. Gibbs: So -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and if it's something that would have a visual impact, a negative visual City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 impact, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) if it creates an adverse condition. Mr. Gibbs: And there's a provision in the code that allows for that exception in terms of building within the setback and putting those aspects in the setback that allow for that kind of discretion? Mr. Lydecker: Objection. He's mischaracterizing her testimony. She didn't say it was an exception; nowhere in which she said it was an exception. Mr. Gibbs: And -- excuse me. Ms. Gelabert, is there anything in the code that you know of as an expert -- andl acknowledge that you're an expert in this field -- that -- is there anything in the code that allows you to basically -- and excuse my use of the word "exception," -- but allows for this kind of ramps or drive aisles within the setback; that allows the Planning director to approve such a thing? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The Planning director decisions, they cannot be arbitrary, so the Planning director's decision, when you're looking at a project, is based on what the Zoning Ordinance dictates, and there are sometimes -- and when I said that I would have to look at the specific of the code, I would have to look at the code to be able to answer specifically on this case, because there are many ordinance that are written differently and there are many things that may affect. So to answer your question, Can the Planning director arbitrarily decide, yes' or 'no' on something?" if it's not on the code, the answer would be "no." Mr. Gibbs: Clearly, ifI had used the word, "arbitrary," I understand that, but I didn't. I asked if you had the discretion to do that. The question -- I just want to find out -- you're an expert. You reviewed these plans for the applicant, and in your review, when you saw these drive aisles within that 85-foot setback, did you -- when you reviewed it, did you look at the code and say, "Is this allowed under the code?" Or did you just say, "That's interesting"? I just want to find out what your basis was. You are being presented here as an expert, and I'm trying to elicit from you the basis of your testimony regarding the setback, the 85-foot setback on the secondfloor; not talking about the third, talking about the second floor. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: On the secondfloor, they used the liner, and therefore, the liner is not applicable, because there's two liners on two primaries. Mr. Gibbs: Right. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Which it would be the Midtown and the -- Northeast Miami. Chair Sarnoff Well get -- I'll take your objection, just walk up and object, but let him -- Richard, let him hold the mike. Mr. Gibbs: That's okay, I can talk in this. Ana andl are friends. We can talk on the same microphone. Mr. Lydecker: Well, no. My issue (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Gibbs: Let me ask -- I'd like to ask Ms. Gelabert a question. I have in front of me this page, which is -- I don't have the page number on here, but I'll submit it into evidence. It's part of Mr. Alvarez' presentation. It's the secondfloor parking liner setback. In here, it has two open spaces that go out on the secondfloor; one to the north -- the northwest and one to the south on the property. And my question is: This is the 85-foot setback. This is a drive aisle. When you saw this, there's no liner at this open space, but there is a drive aisle, and down here -- and there's parking within this 85 feet behind the liner, I understand. But back here, there is a drive -- there is some parking. So my question is about this particular aspect, this opening here -- I'm sorry, I can't show it to you up there. It's the opening that is on the northern -- it's the northernmost City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 opening on the second floor. Is that a drive aisle? Vice Chair Gort: She's going to answer it. Mr. Lydecker: If you can answer the question, I guess. Mr. Gibbs: I just want to find out. Mr. Lydecker: I mean, I don't understand it. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There is what -- it's an entrance here. The -- whatl was looking at -- to answer your question, there's the red dotted line. The parking that I was looking to make sure that they, in fact, met the 85 and no parking was put behind the liners, they made it, because the parking is beyond the 85. So this one -- Mr. Gibbs: That wasn't my question. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Okay, but this one, it's fine. I would not have -- I don't have -- there's no objections on this. And on these other parking spaces that you're showing are right behind the liner; therefore, they do not apply. Mr. Gibbs: My question, just to say it again --I will show it to the Commission. This open space can't be an entrance because it's on the second floor. This open space here, there is a drive aisle that is -- it's included within the setback. I just wanted to know -- Mr. Lydecker: I'm going to object because he's mischaracterizing the exhibit. That is not opening space. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It -- no, it's not open space. It would be at this scale, that it might be a drive, but it doesn't come -- exit or out. It's not an exit because -- Unidentified Speaker: It's on the second floor. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I understand; that's why I'm saying it's not an exit. Vice Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: You can be driving in and out. Again, the issue here is, are the parking spaces exposed? And, no, they're not. Chair Sarnoff Okay, (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) move on. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And on this one -- Chair Sarnoff Let's move on. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- it was clearly approved. Mr. Lydecker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) clear for the record, it's not an open space. Chair Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE) move on. Mr. Lydecker: The building facade goes through -- Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I do have the right to cross-examine. City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff I got you. Mr. Gibbs: I want to make it -- Okay, I want to make it really clear, the issue is there's no liner at this particular point. There is no liner, yet they're saying the 85 feet applies. But a drive aisle is within that 85 feet. And my question to Ms. Gelabert was: Is that allowed? Is she saying to me it's allowed? I just wanted to know. Chair Sarnoff Andl completely understand what you're asking, Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Chair Sarnoff Andl haven't stopped you, because your interpretation is that -- what she said -- as long as the parking is behind the red line, then it's acceptable. And you're saying, "Well, what if you have to drive within that red line" -- Mr. Gibbs: Correct. Chair Sarnoff -- which is 85 feet, is that acceptable? " And my recollection of her answer to you is, "I need to read the code." Mr. Gibbs: Okay, second question. The pedestrian frontage issue -- and I'm going to need to have a microphone to be able to ask the -- well, I'll ask the question. I have two of the drawings from Mr. Alvarez' presentation. I'd like to ask Ms. Gelabert some questions. I can go over there, but I don't want to have her attorney just on my back. I just want to be able to ask her the questions, ifI could. Vice Chair Gort: Come on. You attorneys (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Lydecker: You can have the mike. Vice Chair Gort: -- real good. You guys are buddy -buddy. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Ms. Gelabert -- whoa. Mr. Lydecker: Well, (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) I gave you the mike (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Gibbs: Well, I want to be able to ask her the question. Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Gibbs: Andl want to -- Chair Sarnoff Proceed. Mr. Gibbs: -- show her these documents; that's why. Chair Sarnoff See, as long as he doesn't intimidate your witness, Mr. Lydecker, he can proceed. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: That's okay. Mr. Gibbs: I can tell you one thing, I've known Ana for many years. Chair Sarnoff And I don't -- City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Gibbs: There's no way I can intimidate her. Chair Sarnoff -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) either; I agree. Mr. Gibbs: I don't think so. I have in front of me, andl'm showing you this issue 1 page, North Miami Avenue pedestrian use frontage. Are you familiar with this page? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yes, I am. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. And it says here -- it shows in orange the pedestrian frontages; is that correct, from what you see? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: From what see, yes. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Here, I'll let you look at yours, if you'd prefer. She has a copy on their plans. This is a copy of their plans, so she is looking at that. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: All right, that reflects that 65 percent is required, and the project provides 299 feet. If you would turn to the -- okay, I'm going to also look at -- show you this page, issue 1, North Miami Avenue pedestrian use frontage. It has a blue drawing on it that reflects this. I'd like you to look at this one. You have it right here. Can you tell me -- excuse me, I need my pad. Hold on. I'm bringing my podium to you. Could you tell me where is -- where are the doors on this page? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Right -- Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Andl will show the Commission that she is showing the front door, which is on the northwest side, and she's showing the door to the Wal-Mart vision center, which is on that page of Mr. Alvarez' presentation, correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I am showing you this door, andl'm showing you this door on the corner, and maybe I can show it to the Commissioners. Mr. Gibbs: No, that's all right. I mean, I -- Vice Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) got different doors. Mr. Gibbs: You're showing the two doors. There are -- you're saying there are two doors on North Miami Avenue, correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Correct. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. And those doors go -- and those doors show that there is a pedestrian access that -- they show that this has enough pedestrian access to include the entire area that was marked in orange on your plans, correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Correct. Mr. Gibbs: Can you tell me how these two doors promote pedestrian traffic? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It's not so much; there's a combination when you have it. There's not a limit of how many doors. It's a combination of doors, it's a combination of transparency, it's a combination of what type of activities are behind the wall. In this particular code, they actually City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 say there's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). On the percentage, they don't say how many doors, so they have two doors. They also have activated the retail space. In this code, they also allow for display windows to account for that. That's what they're also showing. This code allows permits, and that's what they're showing. Mr. Gibbs: So are there any standards that you know of as an expert -- I can go back. Are there any standards in the code that provide -- that give you any kind of definition of what constitutes enough doors on a primary roadway such as North Miami Avenue; two, four, five, or one? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: This code calls for a percentage. In that percentage, they say that it would be plazas, that it could be doors, that it could be lobbies, that it could be display windows. So in our professional judgment, when this is reviewed, if it's within the percentage and it's allowed for these type of uses to be activated, that's when we review it. So in the -- in this case, we never -- I don't think I'm familiar with any code that actually says there has to be three doors or four doors; it will depend on the length of the block, it will depend on the activity, and it's a combination of those things which activate the street. Mr. Gibbs: Okay, so you're saying that two doors on this block will activate the pedestrian -- making it welcoming to pedestrians to walk down that road, correct? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: What I'm saying to you is that it's the two doors in combination with the active uses that they are promoting, with the amount of display windows that they're promoting, saying that there's going to be activity in North Miami. That's what I am saying. Mr. Gibbs: I'm trying to -- I'm just trying to find -- there's nothing in the code, though, that provides a specific standard that says that? That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm a lawyer. I'm told that you need to have standards when you apply; standards that people understand. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Andl think that's what I've said. What I've said, if you look at the code on the standards, it said -- it mentions a variety of things, like the display windows, like the doors, like the active underground level, that the percentage will be the ones that would make the active use. So those are the standards that are here. Mr. Gibbs: And what section of the code would those standards be in? 'Cause what I'm trying to get at, when you reviewed this, what did you look at? Vice Chair Gort: She'll look at it; she'll give you the answer. Give her time. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: I know. I'm fascinated by this because this is an expert who should know, and I'm -- Mr. Lydecker: I don't think we really -- we're asking for commentary on it. She's going to look through -- Mr. Gibbs: I appreciate your comments -- Mr. Lydecker: -- a voluminous code, and after citing to all the wrong (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Gibbs: Oh, I know. Mr. Lydecker: You're going to really start? Okay. Mr. Gibbs: Well, and she's not an expert? And she doesn't know this? City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff Okay, okay, I'd rather have silence than listening to the two of you. Mr. Gibbs: I'm shocked. Vice Chair Gort: He's trying to say that she's not an expert. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff All he's trying to say is it's taken her time to look up the code. You could take that for whatever you want. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There's a combination. If you go to Section 627, I think would be .2.10, when it talks about building -- Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and it talks about the 65 percent, if you keep going, and it talks about what is the -- Mr. Gibbs: I have it. I understand. Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- that is -- okay, there you go. Thank you very much. There you go. You have number 1 on 627.1.12, buildings minimum of 65 percent, and then it goes to 'A," all ground level spaces designed for pedestrian oriented uses shall have external entrances directly accessible from public sidewalk. At least one external entrance shall be located along the frontage of the primary or on the corner intersection of the primary street or any other street. Additionally, each building use retails store with a cafe or restaurant for the first -- so this the type of standards you were looking. And if you go to the design standards, and it goes by type of streets, it also talks about an fenestration, it talks about scaling, it talks about the scaling elements on the architecture. So these are the standards and the code. Mr. Gibbs: You're telling me the design standards address the issue of pedestrian connectivity; is that what the design standards focus on? Where in the design standards does it talk about the pedestrian access into buildings and the entrances to buildings, and how that applies to 27.2.10? Mr. Lydecker: This comingfrom -- I'm going to object again. This is [sic] never been heard before. This is all new information being brought about. Door entrances at the front, it was never discussed at UDRB. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, may respond? Chair Sarnoff Mr. Lydecker, it's cross-examination. Mr. Gibbs: That's right. I'm only asking -- Chair Sarnoff And you know what? The judger of the facts takes it for what it's worth. Mr. Lydecker: I understand. Mr. Gibbs: Ms. Gelabert, may I ask you another question? And while you're doing that -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Of course. Mr. Gibbs: -- just ask you one question: When you were Planning director, were you involved in the approval of the Target block at Midtown? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I was the director, so, yes, it was under my purview. I had staff that City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 would review andl would work with them. Mr. Gibbs: When you evaluate -- when -- your staff -- do you remember anything about how you examined and reviewed the Target block on Miami Avenue? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I can -- that's a few years ago. I really would not like to just speculate on whatl was thinking -- Mr. Gibbs: Are you familiar -- Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- a few years ago. Mr. Gibbs: -- with the Target block? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I'm not -- at this -- in this hearing, I would -- it's been a few years, and I'm not ready to speculate on what was I thinking on Target. Chair Sarnoff Why don't you ask her a direct question? Mr. Gibbs: Well, one last question was -- is when you evaluated this Wal-Mart plan in terms of the pedestrian percentages, did you have any occasion to look at what had been done by the City ofMiami one block up at the Target block? Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: The project is looked independently, and if you are bringing the issue of -- there's many streets, as I said, so there's some streets that would -- can -- maybe cannot compare if it's a primary, a secondary, or just is an inside Wal -- so it might be that one of the streets, if you're asking, might be a relationship of a primary; therefore, the setbacks would be differently, so you have to look at a plan and a project as it relates, and it doesn't meet the standards, and that's what I evaluated in this case. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff All right, I'm going to give you guys two minutes to sum up. Mr. Savage: Thank you. Just two minutes, Commissioner. Thank you for the time. I just want to respond to some of the allegations and statements that were made by the applicant during their presentation. Number one that was most disconcerting was that they characterize our side as saying, "You have to throw away what all these people have done, what the UDRB has done. They -- you know, we worked with them, and they agreed with us. What's your problem? Where are you coming with this?" And the fact of the matter is I have both of the UDRB resolutions that we're -- that I would like, by the way, to move into the record, as a matter of housekeeping, all of the UDRB proceedings and formal record and, of course, the PZAB proceedings and that formal record. If you look at these resolutions, they were both 6-0 in the negative. These are all of our issues that we've identified, and so for opposing counsel to come and say that we're asking you to throw out the work of every expert that's looked at this -- and it's only been one side -- that's not at all the case. As you all know, the UDRB is made up of architects and professionals, and all of these things were not addressed. And then they went back, they got another unanimous vote, all in the negative, and they still listed two items that were still not addressed, and they try to say that, "Oh, well, that means that all the other stuff was addressed, and they only had these two problems." That's not true. We've had members of the UDRB write in, "Have you addressed this? Have you done this?" And principally, they talk about the liner uses, which is our principal issue tonight. And so for them to say that, "Oh, you throw out the work of everyone," that I'm standing in the -- Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Savage: Yes, yes. The other thing is, they say, "Oh, well, there's been hearings since the dawn of time, the beginning ofMiami 21. You guys got a hearing over here." Listen, if one of these items that we've identified -- and we have competing expert testimony on the pedestrian, we have competing expert testimony on the setback. This is so clear-cut that it doesn't go to a major use special permit? Listen, those other hearings -- all it needs is one variance there, and it will be a violation of law that we didn't have those hearings. And the fact that there were other charettes and hearings is totally irrelevant. Chair Sarnoff Okay, you need to end. Mr. Savage: And -- Chair Sarnoff End, last sentence, that thing that just captivates us. Mr. Savage: We've heard that -- okay, there has been various interpretations and arguments about the code and what applies to different streets and everything. I will close with this: Upper level parking facilities that do not incorporate liner uses shall be set back no less than 85 feet and shall not exceed a height of 50 feet. You need liner uses, just like the Target building. And somebody better call Target because, wow, they've really made a lot of changes. Apparently, they could have built all the way out. You either have to have liner uses or you have to have an 85-foot setback. And will suggest to you, respectfully, that the idea that there's a magical line on the inside, that that doesn't include the facility -- as their expert said, "the facility" -- and that there's driveways and parking and things, that setback goes to that facility. And I've exhausted my time. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. Savage: I think I've made my points, Chairman. I appreciate the time. Chair Sarnoff All right, thank you. Mr. Savage: And in conclusion, I just would like to say that we urge that you uphold the rule of law and apply the code and require this to go a major use special permit. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff All right. So we have about 30 speakers. Mr. Lydecker: Might l just be --? Chair Sarnoff There is no surrebuttal. Mr. Lydecker: No surrebuttal; just one minor evidentiary issue just to clarify the motion. Chair Sarnoff Do you want to make a motion? Mr. Lydecker: Just a motion to move into evidence. This was the actual Ginsler Permit App. A-02-01, andl have Walter Trujillo, the architect who signed it, who, just to clam all the discussion about this being a blank, you know, hole in the wall and all that other stuff I have the actual picture. The facade continues upward, and I'd just like to introduce this into evidence. I have my architect here who's willing to discuss that whole discussion that we just had about it being a hole. It's not a hole. Chair Sarnoff All right, very good. Mr. Lydecker: I'm sorry? City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Chair Sarnoff I said very good. You're done. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. Chair Sarnoff All right, this is now a public hearing. Sorry? Oh, you're a court reporter. We treat you like furniture. You need a five-minute break? All right, five minutes, but you got to round up all the Commissioners and get them back in five minutes. We're in recess. Later... Chair Sarnoff All right, everybody, let's take our seats. We're going to have now the public hearing and just a couple of words of advice on the public hearing. I know everybody feels this urgency to speak, but if you heard it said, nothing wrong with going up there and saying, "I like what that guy said, I want to support what he said." If you don't even feel the need to speak, that'd be okay, too. Yet, nobody up here wants to take away your two minutes. With that said, the first person to speak with be Javi E. Fernandez. Okay, that's a good start. Fernando Gonzalez. Fernando Gonzalez: Yes, right here. Chair Sarnoff You're recognized, sir. Mr. Gonzalez: Yeah, my name is Fernando Gonzalez. I live 128 Northwest 18 Avenue. I'm here to support the Wal-Mart construction in Midtown. It's going to improve the area, the beautification of the area. It's going to have more police activity, and it's going to be a lot of jobs, a lot of work for the people that are unemployment now, and we have a good community here supporting this. According to the analysis of the code construction that really don't understand very well, I don't see any reason to don't approve the construction of that Wal-Mart in our area. It's very close to the Farmer Market, going to improve the Farmer Market, the business district, and all the business over there. Right now, if you driving around the Miami Avenue and 30th Street, you will see how old is that place looks, so please support this construction in that area, because if you do that, you're going to help the community, and you have to help to development of the area that needs a lot of support right now. Thank you so much. I appreciate that you please vote for it. Chair Sarnoff Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Rossana Torres. Rossana Torres. Okay, Natalie Williams Cooper. Okay, Ray -- Commissioner Carollo: She's coming. Chair Sarnoff Oh. Commissioner Carollo: She's coming. Natalie Williams Cooper: Hello. My name is Natalie Williams Cooper. I'm a zone manager at Store 3397 on 441. I started off as a cashier, and right now, I've been promoted twice. The store in Midtown is closer to my house, maybe like 10 minutes away. I think it would be good in the community. It's good for the resident. It'll bring jobs. It's closer to the kids' schools where we drop the kids off. It'll be very help [sic] for us to get there quicker and safer. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cooper. Raquel Perides. Rachelle Pericles: Hello. It's Rachelle Pericles. Chair Sarnoff I'm sorry. City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Ms. Pericles: That's okay. My name is Rachelle Pericles. I am currently -- just recently promoted with Wal-Mart to assistant manager. I've been with the company for five years. It's been my first employer, andl worked my way through school with Wal-Mart. I recently graduated from FIU (Florida International University), August, with my bachelor's in public administration, and the company, itself, has provided me with so many opportunities. This is going to be my fourth promotion in five years, andl think it'll be great for some of these lovely people here to have that opportunity. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. William Dezayas. On deck is -- and you didn't write your name very clearly; I apologize -- Elsa Glorin. William Dezayas: Good afternoon, Commissioner. My name is William Dezayas. I currently live around 2906 Southwest 1st Street. If I personally want to go to Wal-Mart, I have to go all the way to 87th and Flagler or 87th and Coral Way. Personally, I'm speaking on my behalf and my family, the 99 Percenters and all Latin American in South Florida. A new Wal-Mart in Midtown would not be anything but a good thing for our community. More than 500 plus jobs; there's poverty out there; there's people with no money, no housing, nowhere or no idea where they would get their next meal from. So if we open this Wal-Mart up, there will be new jobs open for not only the lower community, but the middle community, and a new place for people to shop, so I don't see anything wrong with that. Thank you and have a great night. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Elsa? Okay, Rosa Maria Plasencia. Rossana Torres: Can I - (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff What's your name? Ms. Torres: Rossana Torres. I was (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you were, okay. Ms. Torres: Yes. Chair Sarnoff Where were you? Ms. Torres: Thank you so much. Chair Sarnoff Where were you? Ms. Torres: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my break. Chair Sarnoff Okay. Ms. Torres: Thank you for this great opportunity. I'm talking in my behalf and also many families that are struggling, because they not -- for a lack of a jobs that are in Miami, so I don't know why we need to hear a small group of people and now maybe those 500 opportunities of jobs that we could have. Thank you so much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, Rosa Maria Plasencia, and then after that is Fernando Abella. Rosa Maria Plasencia: I'm Rosa Maria Plasencia. My address is 8525 Southwest 68th Street, Miami, Florida. I'd like to just read a statement. Amigos for Kids is South Florida's leading nonprofit organization focused on responding to the diverse needs of abuse, abandoned, neglected, and less fortunate children and families in our community. Amigos for Kids has been City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 serving the community for 22 years, and our mission is to prevent child abuse and neglect by valuing children, strengthening families, and educating communities. To fulfill our mission, Amigos relies on the support of valued corporate donors. We take a moment today to recognize and thank Wal-Mart for serving as a vital partner in making the lives of the children in our community brighter and safer. The support of corporate donors such as Wal-Mart allows Amigos to create awareness through public service campaigns, hold fund-raising events, run an integral after -school program at Jose Marti Park, and promote community efforts, including the well -recognized Amigos for Kids, "There's no Excuse for Child Abuse" campaign, and we thank them for that. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff Fernando Abella, and then on deck is Jorge Castello. Fernando Abella: Can I use a translator? Chair Sarnoff Yeah. Vice Chair Gort: Sure. Chair Sarnoff Where is our translator? There she is right behind you. Vice Chair Gort: Right there. Mr. Abella (As translated by Deborah Spector, official Spanish interpreter): Hello. My name is Fernando Abella, andl work at the company, Pagnifique. It's a -- Pagnifique is a company that makes frozen bread and frozen croissants. The company started with a small structure in Miami in 2003 importing products from South America. In 2007, we participated in a food show, and Wal-Mart was giving some talks, and we found out that small vendors could be -- could sell their products at Wal-Mart. In October 2011, we started selling at a store here, and a month later, we had 15 products that we incorporated into our display. At the end of 2012, we had 40 stores. And now, at the end of 2012, we have 185 stores, thanks to that growth that Wal-Mart has helped us with. Pagnifique has now set up an industrial plant in Miami. We have 70 people on the payroll, and one of the most modern plants in the United States making -frozen bread. So what I wanted to convey is that Wal-Mart gives opportunities to small vendors and small manufacturers. That was all. Thankyou. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Okay, Jorge Castello and then who is on deck is Amber Stallings. Jorge Castello: Good evening. I am speaking here on behalf of my relationship both with Wal-Mart and the neighborhood that we are speaking about tonight, mainly Wynwood. I am a member of management at Wal-Mart. I haven't been there my whole life. I, actually, as a citizen of the City ofMiami, born and raised, I became a member of the Miami Police Department at a very young age. I was there in the tough times this neighborhood went through in the early '90s. I saw it survive; I saw it strive, and I've seen it try to succeed. And I'm here to say that I'm very excited to see the opportunity that a company like Wal-Mart will bring to this neighborhood. It is very true to its surrounding neighbors as it has been the whole time I have been with the company. Thankyou. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Amber Stallings and then on deck is Peter Ehrlich. Amber Stallings: Hi. My name is Amber. I'm actually a Wal-Mart employee. I been with Wal-Mart for about seven months now. I started off as a temp associate. I went part-time, and I think that the Wal-Mart in that community would be grateful. A lot of elderly people live in that City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 community, and, you know, trying to go travel far to get to Wal-Mart is very hard. Andl know from example. My grandma loves Wal-Mart. She can't get there, because we have so many that's far out, and we stay close to the Midtown area, so I think that the Wal-Mart would be great, and it gives everyone opportunities to grow. Wal-Mart is a great company. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Peter Ehrlich, and then on deck is Fernando Gonzalez. Peter Ehrlich: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Peter Ehrlich. The address is 770 Northeast 69th Street. I have a brief handout for all of you. These are just some visual aids; it's very, very simple. There's a couple of photographs. The first picture is Northeast 31st Street, and then the following pictures are aerial photos of Midtown Miami. You'll see from Northeast 31st Street, there's parallel parking on the south side of 31st Street and on the north side. You'll also see the trees and the bald -outs for landscaping. It's a very attractive street. If you look at the next two pages of the aerial photos and you look at the other streets in Midtown Miami, you'll see there's a lot of landscaping on all of the streets. There's also parallel parking on all of the streets, and it's very pedestrian oriented. The tree canopy has been built in, growing in pretty well in the last five or six years. And then I quickly bring you to a letter from Paul Savage, our attorney, dated August 27th, page 5. It's in your package. But very, very briefly, it talks about nonconformities and variances, variances from streetscape design standards. Fundamental feature throughout the design standards of the district are on -street parking, parallel parking with substantial pedestrian buffers. You see from the photographs -- and if you visit art -- Miami and the art shows during Art Basel, you'll see lots of trees, you know, parallel parking. We'd like that to be continued. Wal-Mart has -- their expert has tested they will kill 31 trees on 31st Street alone. Please vote to affirm the appeal. This doesn't kill the Wal-Mart project. It just means they can come back with a MUSP and with a slightly modified plan. Please vote to affirm the appeal. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, Fernando Gonzalez, and then I have the president -- I'm sorry -- Laura Gonzalez. Fernando Gonzalez. Okay. Laura Gonzalez (As translated by Deborah Spector, official Spanish interpreter): Laura Gonzalez, 128 West -- Northwest 18th Avenue. I represent a small -- an organization in Little Havana called Neighbors in Action, and I'm here to ask for our Commissioners' support. Miami is growing. There's a lot of new construction. We're very happy about that, because our city is becoming more beautiful, and I'm coming here to advocate for another empty space to be built and to be built by Wal-Mart in Midtown. This is not only going to beautifi, our area, but it will also benefit many families who have ended up without jobs. I can assure you that in this small group of people from our community, there are at least 10 families without work. This will not only benefit us in terms of employment, but also for us, we who are housewives, we'll have food and cleaning products and clothing at much lower prices than we have now. And that's why I'm asking for your support, because you'll be supporting a very needy community. With my hand on my heart, I plead for your support. Chair Sarnoff And in conclusion. Ms. Gonzalez: Just as we support you, let it be reciprocal. Thank you very much. God bless you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Applause. Chair Sarnoff All right, Patricia Gonzalez, and after Patricia is Normal Figueroa. Patricia Gonzalez: (As translated by Deborah Spector, official Spanish interpreter): I'm City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 supporting this project presented by Wal-Mart for two years. Chair Sarnoff Put your hand up on the mike higher. Ms. Gonzalez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) project for two years -- Chair Sarnoff Wait, wait, wait, we're not hearing you. Ms. Gonzalez: -- because there are a lot of people like me who need employment. Wal-Mart was talking to a lot of people to show us what their vision was and what they were going to offer. There are a lot of benefits for the community as a whole and for each member of the community. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Okay, Norma Figueroa and then Hector Francisco Fernandez. Norma Figueroa: Hi. My name is Norma, and I'm going to tell you I used to work in Wal-Mart in Colorado, Avon, andl saw a lot of things, good things from the company there for people that have worked for six months and a year. They give them bonus. Whatever extra is from the profit they make. They also -- it's a good thing that they provide over 10 percent to the community to help in projects and other people. That's it. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, Hector Francisco Fernandez, Iluminada Perez, Aramis Carona [sic] Sese. Aramos -- Aramis Carona [sic] -- it looks like "Sese." Amory Gonzalez. Who are you, sir? Aramis Cardona Sese (As translated by Deborah Spector, official Spanish interpreter): Aramis Cardona Sese. We in the United States think that there's no problem here that should cause unemployment, but nevertheless, there is. This chain is coming to resolve an enormous problem, not just of employment. In addition to jobs, people will have the opportunity to purchase products and items at lower prices with -- in a greater volume to resolve their grocery problems for the week, the two weeks, the month. So it would be a sacrilege if we all did not support the opening of Wal-Mart. God bless Wal-Mart. Applause. Chair Sarnoff Amore Gonzalez. Amory Gonzalez: "Andre," please. Chair Sarnoff There you are. Mr. Gonzalez: Andre Gonzalez. Chair Sarnoff Amory Gonzalez. Sorry. Do we have an extra mike? Ms. Spector: Hello, hello. Vice Chair Gort: Yeah, you got it. Mr. Gonzalez (As translated by Deborah Spector, official Spanish interpreter): My name is Andre Gonzalez. My address is 143 Southwest 9th Street. I think the opening of a Wal-Mart in Midtown will resolve a lot of problems for low-income people in the area, because Wal-Mart's prices are way -- much lower than the competition. It can also improve business for smaller businesses in the area because it can be a distribution center, and because of the wide variety of products that are available at Wal-Mart, it would satisfy the supply and demand needs ofMiami, City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 which is a very cosmopolitan city. That's why we think this should be approved, so that it can help solve the economic and other problems in the neighborhood. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. America Medina. On deck is Armando Sancerni. America Medina: Good evening. My name is America Medina. I'm the assistant executive director of the Wynwood Historical Homeowners Association. I not only speak for the homeowners; I speak for over 300 individuals and families who signed support letters for Wal-Mart. I agree with a lot of what everybody was saying up here. We need the Wal-Mart because of the prices. We need the Wal-Mart there so the area can prosper, and so we support the Wal-Mart coming into Midtown. Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Armando Sancerni. Armando Sancerni: That's good. Chair Sarnoff Oh, there you are, okay. Mr. Sancerni: Here. Chair Sarnoff I knew I was going to get to you. Mr. Sancerni: Commissioners, I'm with -- my name is Armando Sancerni. I'm with Sanar Naturals. We're a family -run business, andl want to take an opportunity today to tell you what Wal-Mart has done for our family business. Sixteen years ago, Wal-Mart gave us an opportunity to be a shelf vendor, and we are a health and beauty company that specializes in Hispanics. And in that 16 years, we started with just three family employees and one product, and out of that 16 years, during that time, Wal-Mart has helped us in so many ways till now we have 18 employees, and we have 59 new products. Not only does that helped our company and new jobs in our company, but it also kind of domino -effected to the community with other vendors that we had to take in, and it was all local. So it was more than just 18 employees that they gave a job. A Wal-Mart in Midtown will actually help more employees; not necessarily employees in Wal-Mart, but the surrounding community will promote more jobs. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. SaifIshoof, SaifIshoof. SaifIshoof Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is SaifIshoof. I live at 10050 Southwest 98th Avenue, Miami, Florida. It's an honor to be here. I serve as executive director ofCityAir Miami. I'm here tonight as a private citizen. I wanted to express the sentiment that Wal-Mart, as a corporate citizen, spent over $1 billion in 2012 helping to support communities around the United States, in addition to $120 million in supporting nonprofits around this country. Here in South Florida alone, organizations like City Air have been the beneficiary of over a half a million dollars' worth of philanthropic support because of the shareholders of Wal-Mart valuing real communities, living communities. In the City ofMiami alone, our organization now has programs in over seven schools, which are able to touch upon over 2,500 students, and so tonight, the work of Wal-Mart has really, as my colleague, Rosa Plasencia from Amigos for Kids has said, helped usher in our ability to be a transformative force in the lives of children in now 17 schools throughout this community, and we hope that their continuation of being able to do so is something that will help nonprofits and other social entrepreneurs in this community. Thank you, sir. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Luis De Rosa. Luis De Rosa: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. This is deja vu for me; I've been here before. When the Midtown project started, I was one of the -- along with many community City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 leaders and many business leaders, supporting the initiative of the Midtown project, believing in the goals of not only creating business opportunity, which in turn would create jobs, and, of course, increase the area's tax base, but also create business for small operations, small mom -and -pops. But I want to say that I'm here to say that Wal-Mart is for everyone. I mean, I shop at Target, Publix, Costco. I mean, the list goes on. But I also shop at Wal-Mart, because I believe in options. I believe in the ability for -- to have a competition. As president of the chamber, of the Puerto Rican Chamber, which is situated, as you know, in the Wynwood area -- and I've been involved in that area for many years; a member of the board of directors also at the Borinquen Clinic -- I believe that Wal-Mart will offer an opportunity especially to the low, the moderate -income families of the community, andl hope that some of these issues will be addressed. I know there are concerns on both sides, andl understand that, and that's part of the American way. But at the end of the day, I think Wal-Mart would be an asset to this community. I think Wal-Mart will help the area, not only by creating jobs for low-income families, but also an opportunity for the low, middle -- low and moderate residents of the Wynwood neighborhood; a neighborhood, by the way, which, despite -- and we support the art and the design district. We support all those initiatives, 'cause that's good for our community -- but we also want our low- to moderate -income families not to be forgotten. Wal-Mart, especially with the introduction of the grocery shopping, has created competition for other large established supermarkets chains, which have had for a very long time a monopoly in our area. We have two Publix, one on 17th Street and Biscayne and one on 57th, which is okay, 'cause it is, again, you know, that opportunity. But having Wal-Mart situated in the Midtown area -- andl see the beautiful design, andl think it really fits well with the community. I think it's going to be something very important for our area and important also for the City. So I thank you and urge you to please support this project and please vote "yes." Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Mr. De Rosa: Thank you. Chair Sarnoff Jacob Pfeffer. On deck is Richard Perez. Jacob Pfeffer: Good evening. Jacob Pfeffer. I'm a resident at 3470 East Coast Avenue, Midtown IL I'm also a business owner in City ofMiami with a retail store at Bayside Marketplace. Before I begin my personal comments, I've submitted on record a e-mail (electronic) that was sent to me today by Mr. Willy Bermello, who sits on the UDRB Board. Mr. Lydecker earlier today told you that the UDRB's concerns were all addressed, and this e-mail will tell you otherwise. Beginning with the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Please feel free to use and read this e-mail into the record. In my professional opinion, Wal-Mart had every opportunity to comply with the City's guidelines. They chose not to. Two of those guidelines are the requirements for liner space along the principal arterial" -- Mr. Lydecker: Can I object, please? Mr. Pfeffer: I'm sorry, this -- Mr. Lydecker: If he wants to give testimony, he should give testimony, but he's not standing here as a human tape recorder attempting to say what somebody else said. Andl understand it's a relaxed procedure -- Mr. Pfeffer: Other people have read statements that was written for them. Mr. Lydecker: -- but he's coming up here to testify what somebody supposedly sent him in an e-mail. That's absolutely crazy. Mr. Pfeffer: I've already submitted it into the record. I have copies that we got in the public -- City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Lydecker: Doesn't matter. Chair Sarnoff Wait, wait. Mr. Lydecker: The person who - Chair Sarnoff Stop, stop. Mr. Lydecker: -- actually said it should be here. Chair Sarnoff Stop. Here's what you're going to do. You're going to let us submit it into the record. You're going to put your own testimony on. Mr. Lydecker: Okay. (UNINTET,T IGBIT ,F) Mr. Pfeffer: Thank you, Mr. Lydecker. I appreciate your time. Ultimately, the concern here is that you've been told numerous times that all of UDRB's concerns were addressed. And what this will tell you and what I can tell you, it reinforces that they have not been. There are multiple e-mails that we retrieved through public information requests where UDRB members are expressing to staff that they are concerned that this project does not pass muster. They are asking for clarification about the liner uses on the second and third floor. And staff never responded back with an actual response with justification; only generic, canned responses that never addressed the problem. Furthermore, you should definitely be concerned that this whole project has been attempting to tow the line of the bare minimum and not to be a homerun that fits in the code, and the staff has been helping that process along where instead, this project should have been easy to do if [sic] a special II class permit by adhering to the code. Instead, they should have gone through a master use special permit. Thank you for your time. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. Richard Perez. And after Richard Perez is Grant Stern. Richard Perez: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Richard Perez, with offices at 701 BrickellAvenue. I represent Midtown Opportunities, which is the owner of the remaining undeveloped tracts in Midtown, except for one, which we recently sold to Related, and it's going to be a nice project now in Midtown coming up. We started this project with some very serious concerns about what was going to happen on Midtown Boulevard. The original design of this project had Midtown Boulevard as the back of the house. And for us, Midtown Boulevard is going to be -- the principal place of pedestrian access is going to be the place where we -- the vision is to make it really sort of feel like Lincoln Road and have the restaurant feel. And to the credit of the applicant, we worked with them. We spent a long time developing something that we thought was appropriate for Midtown Boulevard. It's all going to be retail liner space. We think it's frankly an iconic design on Midtown Boulevard, and to their credit, they worked with us. We went through the process, and we think that the ultimate design on Midtown Boulevard is one worthy ofMidtown Boulevard and that experience, and we're here to tell you our experience with Midtown -- working with Wal-Mart -- working with them to try to get to a solution which we think is a real win -win on Midtown Boulevard. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, Grant Stern. Grant Stern: Can I get the laptop with the screen up, please. I'd also like to state for the record that Ivonne Rivero, from Midtown II, Unit H601, and Catalina Gutierrez, from Midtown II, Unit 1204, have both elected to defer their time, andl would like to request from the Chair two additional minutes so that I can say this with -- taking at least one or two breaths. Chair Sarnoff I'll give you six minutes, Mr. Stern. City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Stern: Thank you very much, Your Honor. Andl come to this Commission hat in hand begging, begging you to affirm this appeal to maintain the character of Midtown Miami. This project has major flaws, major flaws, and I'd like to start with something that the UDRB reviewed, and it's within the referral. This is not a (UNINTET,TIGIBT,F) over matter, whatsoever. As one staffer put it, `If the trucks don't fit, you must acquit. " There's a 12-foot clearance beneath the structure that's used for the second story loading docks. There's 15 foot required. If you look at the code, the code says the berth minimum is 15 feet in height, and this is clearly enunciated. The standard truck height is 13 feet, 6 inches tall, all right. Therefore, there's a major design continuity problem between the height requirement of the berth and the entrance requirement for the trucks. This is an engineering level problem, all right. Furthermore, as you see in the referral here, the UDRB criticized the truck maneuvering plans. The one on the right shows a blind left-hand reverse, and then the one on the left in the middle actually shows the truck backing blind down the ramp into oncoming traffic before -- somehow backing out of a space that has "headache" bars. The original intent of the engineers, as I found an e-mail back in January, was to accommodate a 13-foot, 10-inch truck height, but the ramp only has a 12-foot tall clearance. Taller vehicles will have to load on street, in violation of the Midtown code and intent, all right. There's a reason why Wal Mart's counsel brought a helicopter into their presentation: because it's probably safer than driving a truck. These kind of engineering problems can cause fatalities, disasters, accidents -- Mr. Lydecker: Can I make an objection, please? Chair Sarnoff Go ahead. Mr. Lydecker: What capacity is he testifying? If he's going to come in and testifi, as to something as to an expertise, then I'd like to maybe get on the record what his professional training is and what his expertise in this area is, because he's coming in with all these expertises and legal opinions about things. I don't think he has the backing to support these opinions, so I would like to at least put on the record -- if he wants to go down this road, let's put on the record what his expertise and professional training is. Chair Sarnoff Let me say something to you, Mr. Lydecker. Unlike a court of law, a great many or a great much opinions are expressed that are not factual. This Commission ordinarily sifts through what they believe to be opinions and root down to the facts. Mr. Stern is doing nothing other than what a lot of people do: making statements which may be correct - Applause. Chair Sarnoff -- and may be incorrect, but it's for us to decide. And understand your -- andl would make the same objection you're making, but we're going to let him finish. Mr. Lydecker: Okay, thank you. Mr. Stern: Thank you, Your Honor. There's another -- Chair Sarnoff I like that. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that was good. Mr. Stern: There's a sixth violation that we found related to the Northeast 31 st Street realignment, and make no mistake, the realignment is a variance from the code, all right. The design guideline requires eight foot of parallel park or small truck loading zones. Now, I have to depart from the presentation for a second -- oh, no, maybe it's in here. I'm sorry, it is. Fine -- to show you the actual guideline. This is the complete text of the parallel parking area and SD-27 design guidelines, type 2, street type, secondary streets, page 20, applicable to Northeast 31st Street. It says: A row of parallel parking or a small -to -medium truck parking -- truck loading City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 area is recommended between the traveling and the pedestrian area. It goes further to say: This area shall -- "shall" meaning "required" -- be a total of eight feet wide, including a two foot valley gutter. Landscape bald -outs shall be placed every two parking spaces or, plus or minus, 40 feet, all right. Now, this was the subject of a code change that was requested as a text change by the applicant last year in front of the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board), and declined. Now, it says 627.2.1. 627.2.1 is actually repeated in the back of the code, and it joins the code from the east side into the west side, specifically for including a table, all right. The table is 627.2.1. You can see in this next slide at the bottom, it -- this is the change that was rejected to the design standards. Now, I'm going to show you the table in 627.2.1 that reveals that their ideas for these street standards are completely wrong, okay. First of all, the NA applies to merely a building setback, not actually to a "build to" line change, which is indicated in the design guidelines right here. There's a 10 foot setback indicated, but there's no dimension here. The dimensional criteria simply refers to Section 627.1 for specific dimensional requirements. Now, it's a little bit confusing because 627.1 actually appears multiple places in the code. It appears in the first page -- in the first section, all the way at the top on page 7 on the east side, and then a second time down here at page 23, where it's applicable to our situation. Now, if you review these pages, there's a chart, and on the right-hand side, there's a chart that says "20 foot building to," so there's a change in the "building to" line. The "building to" line in the rest of Midtown is actually the base building line, which is where the platted right-of-way, the sidewalk, meets the building, all right. So this indicates or interacts with -- excuse me -- this section right here, indicating a setback. Our expert testified that there's parking sitting within the setback along 31 st Street. This is the setback. And as the architectural standards clearly denote, this setback involves moving the wall, not the use behind the wall. The Midtown District very clearly defines how setbacks should be examined. The examination -- excuse me -- the definition or the code citation is under 627.2.5/5A. Chair Sarnoff You need to conclude. Mr. Stern: And I'll conclude in a moment. And it simply says -- I'm sorry, 627.2.6/5A: Setback requirements shall be measured perpendicular to and from the base building line. In conclusion, this project is tremendously flawed. They've had every opportunity to refile their permit as a major use special permit and go through the regular public hearing process. They would have already had their permit by now, and I'm disappointed in them for hiring 20 high-priced attorneys and the former Planning director -- Chair Sarnoff (UNINTELLIGIBLE) don't object because you are a high-priced lawyer. Mr. Stern: -- and brining all these people here -- Mr. Lydecker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Stern: And bringing all these people here - Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) we're all clear. Mr. Stern: -- who - yes. And bringing all these people here who might work 40 hours for 1 hour of - Chair Sarnoff In conclusion. Mr. Stern: -- his presentation time. Chair Sarnoff I think conclusion -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You know what? This is America; you're entitled to hire whoever you want, low-priced -- City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 Mr. Stern: That's - Chair Sarnoff -- high-priced - Vice Chair Gort: Yeah. Chair Sarnoff -- medium-priced. Mr. Stern: That's -- I'm saying it's a shame, because if they really cared about - Chair Sarnoff Okay. Mr. Stern: -- the community, they would - Chair Sarnoff Thank you -- Mr. Stern: -- respect it. Chair Sarnoff -- Mr. Stern. Thank you. Mr. Stern: Thank you for your time. Applause. Chair Sarnoff All right, Monica Pobog-Malinoldka. Didl get that anywhere close to being right? Monica Pobog Malinoldka: It's Monica Pobog-Malinoldka. Chair Sarnoff That's easy for you to say. Ms. Pobog Malinoldka: Yes. I'm not an expert. I live in Midtown. Actually, my building is on the Midtown Boulevard. I'm a design director for Miami Art School, and I'm also adjunct professor for FIU, andl live in Midtown, and my children go to school just a couple blocks from there. I walk them, and they also go on bicycles. And one of the reasons why I moved to Midtown is the fact that this is a pedestrian friendly neighborhood, andl can walk with my children to the places nearby. We already experienced craziness during the Art Basel, and this highly distract my routines. I don't even want to think what will happen when the -- all the traffic not -- you know, that is associated with having Wal-Mart in our neighborhood will cause. And I'm not against Wal-Mart giving all the job opportunities. It's just that this is the wrong spot. This is not the place it was meant to be -- to have such traffic and all the trucks and all the craziness that it will cause. So I just wanted to oppose the fact that it will be built in this spot. That's all. Thank you very much. Chair Sarnoff Thank you. All right, I think we have concluded the public hearing. Anybody want to speak that didn't speak? Just kidding. Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Sarnoff That was a bad gesture. So the public hearing is now closed; coming back to this Commission. There's -- let me just say a couple things. There's no doubt this is in my district, but do not find this to be a district Commissioner's sole decision or even influence. I think everybody is entitled on Midtown, based on the investments we've put in there, based on where it's located to certainly have a say-so. When I met with Wal-Mart and when I met with the folks that oppose Wal-Mart, I was very clear that I would not make this decision based on where City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 12/18/2013 City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013 ADJOURNMENT something was manufactured or who had green roots. The whole thing would come down to who presented credible testimony that demonstrates that Wal-Mart, as of right, had the ability to go in there. And having had the ability to go through this hearing and see the presentations, in my mind, it is clear that, based on the credible evidence presented before this Commission today, Wal-Mart has demonstrated that it does fit within the open Class II permit, and we should deny this appeal. So I'm going to pass the gavel to Commissioner Gort. I'm going to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Class II permit. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Vice Chair Gort: There's a motion. There's a second. I think the Planning director would like to make some statements. Chair Sarnoff I'm sorry; I was supposed to let you -- no? No? Mr. Garcia: No, Commissioner, but -- Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, can -- I'd like to object for the record. Mr. Garcia is going to speak. He will be speaking almost in surrebuttal. The public hearing should be reopened after Mr. Garcia speaks - Vice Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: -- to allow -- Vice Chair Gort: Thankyou. Yeah. Mr. Gibbs: -- for public comment. Vice Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. Mr. Gibbs: I'm just putting it - Vice Chair Gort: Okay. Mr. Gibbs: -- on the record. Vice Chair Gort: Fine. There's a motion and there's a second. All in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Gort: Thankyou. Applause. Chair Sarnoff Okay, I'm going to ask you all to file out as quickly as possible. END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS The meeting adjourned at 10:26p.m. City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 12/18/2013