Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2015-12-10 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com -mr,1°r ,° - ime9RP aRaii: IP AO .r r()„ '1 Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:00 PM PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Chair Keon Hardemon, Vice Chair Ken Russell, Commissioner District Two Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Chair Gort, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Vice Chair Hardemon On the loth day of December 2015, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The City Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Gort at 7:17 p.m. and adjourned at 9:33 p. m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission Chambers at 7:19 p.m. and Vice Chair Hardemon entered the Commission Chambers at 7:26 p.m. ALSO PRESENT: Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): May I, Mr. Chair? Chair Gort: PZ.1. Yes, sir. Mr. Min: I need to read the speech into the record. PZ (Planning & Zoning) 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 must be sworn in by the City Clerk. Please note, Commissioners have 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 part 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. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard. For applications requiring City Commission approval, the applicant will then present his application request to the City Commission. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation, and no one from the public wishes to speak for or against the item, the City Commission may proceed to its deliberation decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing. For appeals, the appellant will present his appeal to the City Commission, followed by the appellee. Staff will be allowed to make any recommendation it may have, and the public may speak, as stated before. 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 through the Chair for not more than two minutes each unless modified by the Chair. The City of Miami 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 sole discretion. If any Commissioner thinks that the documents supplied to the Commission less than seven days before merit a continuance, the item may be continued by the City Commission. Thank you. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Excuse me, Chair; ifI may administer the oath? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. If you will be speaking on any of tonight's Planning & Zoning items, may I please have you stand and raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning items. Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair. Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. City of Miami Paget Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Francisco Garcia: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director for the record. The first order of business if I may suggest is that there are two items on the Planning & Zoning agenda that want to be deferred, so if I may address those first, they are item PZ.1 and items PZ. 11 and 12, and I'll read a brief description. Item PZ.1 is a proposal for rezoning at a property at 140 and 32 Northeast Miami Place, approximately. This would have been before you on first reading. We are requesting that it be continued to February 25, and the applicants are here to state their support, as well, should that be needed And for items PZ.11 and PZ.12, which are a land use and rezoning application for properties at approximately 3830 to 3865 -- or 3875 Day Avenue, those two items also are proposed to be continued to a date certain of January 28, 2016; and if possible, to a time certain, subject to your consideration, of 5 p.m. That is a wish expressed by many of the community members that were here previously, as many of them have a challenge attending any earlier than that. With that -- and also, the applicant is here to express their support of that particular motion (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Carollo: Move to defer. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: Been moved and second. Discussion. No further discussion. All in favor, state it by saying "aye.' The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Gort: Thank you. City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) PZ.1 ORDINANCE First Reading 14-00054zc PZ.2 15-00795ha 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 "T6-24-0" URBAN CORE ZONE -OPEN TO "T6-36A-O" URBAN CORE ZONE -OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1410, 1420, 1424, AND 1432 NORTHEAST MIAMI PLACE; 1415, 1421, 1425, 1433, AND 1445 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT; AND 47, 55, AND 67 NORTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 14-00054zc FR Fact Sheet.pdf 14-00054zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 14-00054zc Application & Supporting Documents.pdf 14-00054zc Legislation (v3).pdf 14-00054zc Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1410, 1420, 1424, and 1432 NE Miami Place; 1415, 1421, 1425, 1433, and 1445 NE Miami Court; and 47, 55, and 67 NE 14th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Iris Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of 14th Plaza Corporation FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Motion to approve with conditions failed, by a vote of 3-5, on March 5, 2014; therefore, constituting a recommendation of denial. PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "T6-24-0" to "T6-36A-O". Item does not include a covenant. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.1 was deferred to the February 25, 2016, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AFFIRMING THE MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD'S DENIAL OF AN APPEAL, BY LORETO DOUCET, OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION BD15-006663-001 AT 3985 LOQUAT AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; FURTHER, PLACING CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE ANY FUTURE AFTER -THE -FACT PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3985 City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 LOQUATAVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 15-00795ha Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00795ha Analysis & HEPB Reso.pdf 15-00795ha Appeal to City Commission.pdf 15-00795ha Appeal to HEPB.pdf 15-00795ha Application.pdf 15-00795ha Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00795ha Legislation (v3).pdf 15-00795ha-Submittal-Santiago Echemendia-Proposed Settlement Terms.pdf Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon R-15-0549 Chair Gort: PZ.2. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.2 is before you as a resolution. This is an appeal of a denied tree removal permit for a property at 3985 Loquat Avenue. As you may know, the subject matter of this particular appeal are two specimen trees located at the subject property. We have had, since the last continuation of this particular item, the opportunity to speak with all the parties involved, and I would like to allow the appellant to set forth for your consideration what they are proffering as an agreed upon mitigation plan. I will say for your benefit that we, as staff, have reviewed it and find it to be appropriate, and we submit it with our recommendation for your consideration. Chair Gort: Yes, sir; you're recognized. Santiago Echemendia: Good evening, Mr. Chair. Santiago Echemendia, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, with the law firm of Shutts & Bowen. I'm with my -- with the property owner, Loreto Doucet; and my colleague, Kathleen Maurer. Let me hand out the proposed settlement terms that we've been discussing with staff, if I may. It is -- for the record, we met with the abutting property owner. We reached a settlement agreement this afternoon. She was Cheryl Turner, represented by Tucker Gibbs, and we're pleased to say that we reached a settlement. We also -- as a Jennings disclosure, Commissioner Russell, who was a pleasure to work with, facilitated a resolution between ourselves, and staff, and the abutting property owner that was acceptable to the abutting property owner, as well as with staff. We've been negotiating all day, kind of told the most recent hour. There are two terms that I think Mr. Russell may be looking at in the term sheet, and it was suggested by the Planning director that they actually be removed; -- was not at our suggestion -- to be dealt with as part of an after -the -fact permit. And so, in essence, what we're requesting is that the appeal be denied in part as it relates to the removal of the Fichus trees, so that we do have to remove the Fichus trees; and approved in part, on the conditions of reducing the mitigation from 50,000 to 25, 000; and then an additional -- the gumbo -limbo trees, Commissioner, got changed to mahogany trees by your staff -- that's included -- and in lieu thereof the payment of $15, 000. So the sum and substance of it is, it's reducing from 50 to 40, plus those that aren't -- that you can see on it, but that aren't really part of this appeal that we discussed earlier. And so that is the -- what we would ask you, respectfully, to move, and to have seconded, and is consistent with what was discussed previously, and what staff is saying that they're willing to embrace as a settlement; subject to your approval, of course, to this Commission's approval. Chair Gort: Thank you. So both parties are in agreement with this? Mr. Echemendia: Yes, sir. City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Russell: Just a quick question, Chair. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Russell: The removal of the other items doesn't change what -- that they exist; they're just not in this particular appeal; is that correct? Mr. Echemendia: It was suggested by Francisco that they're not part of this appeal. It's going to be part of and after the fact that it just -- so that we don't kind of mix the two, but we will take care of them, as per the agreement, and as discussed Mr. Garcia: That is correct. I just wanted to state for the record that his statement is accurate. I did request that the items be removed since these two particular items are not the subject of this appeal. They are actually the subject of an after -the -fact permit for the removal of other trees that are not the subject of today's hearing. Commissioner Russell: Shall I explain? Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Are you okay with it, Commissioner Russell? I'm a little surprised that Tucker Gibbs is not here, so I just want to make sure that, you know -- Commissioner Russell: I'd be glad to explain. Chair -- Commissioner Carollo: Are you okay with this, since you were part of the negotiations and things? Commissioner Russell: I am. And I'd like to speak about it as we move and you move to discuss, yeah. Shall we move? Chair Gort: Go right ahead. Commissioner Russell: This is in Coconut Grove, obviously, where we really treasure our canopy, and we have the proper mitigations in place when things happen. And in this case, we have the issue of a property owner who is building a house, and they've removed a couple trees without permit, and they're affected a couple trees that now need to be removed, and so there's been a back and forth on -- with a neighbor, who's represented by Tucker Gibbs. And I thank you for making sure he is absolutely okay with the fact that we've worked diligently with Mr. Echemendia and his clients, as well as Mr. Gibbs and his clients, many, many, many hours already this past week, to make sure that they're satisfied with each other. But in addition, I feel it's my responsibility as the Commissioner to really make sure that we, as the City, are satisfied that we're setting the right example for developers who, whether on purpose or by accident, do cause the damage of trees in their development of a property. And so we have mitigations in place. HEPB (Historical & Environmental Preservation Board) did make a recommendation of $50, 000, and so their appeal at this point was for 25, and we've actually gotten them to increase that by adding 15 mahogany trees that will be placed within the City, within District 2, either on public or private land and -- as a mitigation -- and I'm very satisfied with it, and I thank all of you very much for really, you know, coming very -- being very forthright with what happened, and making good on it, and I appreciate that. Mr. Echemendia: Thank you, Commissioner. We appreciate it, as well, in working with you. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Chair Gort: Thank you. Any further discussion? There's a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: Who made the motion? Commissioner Russell: Oh, I apologize. I do need to make a Jennings disclosure, I believe, on this, seeing that I had met with them. Commissioner Carollo: He stated it, but I think you should do it. Commissioner Russell: And I also met with Mr. Gibbs and his clients. Is that sufficient? Mr. Echemendia: That is correct. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Commissioner Carollo: Madam City Attorney? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Yes. Commissioner Russell: Would you like me to read this whole thing? Ms. Mendez: Yes. But -- well, it was a Jennings disclosure, and the fact that the Commissioner met with both sides, and if there's anyone that has any objection at this time. Hearing nothing, then we can move forward. And Commissioner Russell, you made the motion? Commissioner Russell: Yes, I did. Chair Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: Any further discussion? Being none -- Mr. Echemendia: Thank you, Commissioner. Chair Gort: -- all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. Chair Gort: As amended. PZ.3 ORDINANCE 11-00700Iu First Reading 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 LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED City of Miami Pagel Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 840 NORTHEAST 78TH 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. 11-007001u 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 11-007001u Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 11-007001u Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 11-007001u Legislation (v2).pdf 11-007001u Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 840 NE 78th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Marine Max East, Inc., Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on October 5, 2011 by a vote of 8-1. See companion File ID 11-00700zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Russell, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez Chair Gort: PZ 3. Santiago Echemendia: Thank you so much. Thank you. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ 3 and PZ.4 are companion items. They are respectively a proposal for a land use change and a rezoning of a property at 840 Northeast 78th Street. 171 describe it briefly. We have recommended approval of the rezoning, which is actually a change from T5-R, the present zoning designation, to TS-O, and we are recommending approval at the Planning & Zoning Department, as did also the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. This item has been before this Commission a number of times, and has been continued. There were some restrictions or clouds on the property that have since then been resolved, and the applicant presently before you has met a number of times with neighboring stakeholders; we have, as well, and we had found there to be widespread support for the proposal. It will entail that the property will be significantly enhanced; and also, the longstanding issue of truck access and egress from the property will also be resolved by incorporating all the maneuvering that happens now, some of it on street, will all now be brought onto the property, and there are plans to show that, as well. With that, I'll defer to the applicant, and certainly be happy to answer any questions. Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. Ines Marrero-Priegues: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Ines Marrero. I'm an attorney, with offices at 701 Brickell Avenue. I'm here on behalf of the City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 1,22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 applicant, Marine Max. As your Planning director stated, this application, which has been going on for quite some time, and was originally filed by another counsel, is finally here with all the issues that have delayed it through the years resolved, with a favorable recommendation from your staff, and with the support of the stakeholders. It is a very straightforward application. We are seeking to rezone a very small parcel of land that is on the Little River Canal, abutting 79th Street. It's specifically -- and I'll move quickly through this slide because I know it's a lengthy agenda; it's been a long day, but we're -- Sneeze Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Bless you. Commissioner Carollo: Bless you. Ms. Marrero-Priegues: -- seeking to rezone this property, which is at 840 Northeast 78th Street, from T5-R to T5-O, so, basically, we're not really changing the underlying transect, we're just opening up, making it a little bit more liberal in terms of the uses that are permitted. And the point of the application is to allow the marine -related uses on the property. As you can see, the property is very small. It's a quarter of an acre, and it has been a two-story apartment building since the '20s. I'll go back to the slide that had the -- and marine -related uses, offices and sales have been on the property since 1978, but they never obtained a certificate of use for the building. We're seeing this a lot in the City as a result of Miami 21; businesses that existed, but didn't have a certificate of use. T5-O is the only sub -category in the T5 transect that allows the marine -related uses, so we're seeking the rezoning of the property from T5-R to T5-O and the companion land use change to allow us to then file the warrant that will legalize the use. And we're also contemplating the renovation of the facilities with a new building that will be part of the warrant. As you can see, for those of us that are familiar with 79th Street, everything that is south of 79th Street abutting the canal is -- has been very active marine -related uses; a lot of boatyards, some of which are operated by Marine Max, but there's other marinas on that area. This is a bird's eye perspective of the facilities on the south side of 79th Street, and this is the property that is owned by Marine Max that is zoned T5-O, and we are now rezoning the property also owned by the same applicant to the east with the same zoning so that everything has the same zoning, we can file a warrant, and we can bring forth an improvement to the existing building that's there that addresses not only our operational issues, but also the concerns of the neighbors. Vice Chair Hardemon: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Hardemon: Do you mind going back one slide? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Sure. Vice Chair Hardemon: The property -- okay, you see the light green, and then you see the dark green. To the right of that, right -- that little sliver in between -- what's that? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: That was the subject -- it is the subject of an adverse possession claim by Marine Max. That property was the reason why this took so many years to come back to the Commission. It was originally platted as apparent right-of-way when the developers of the subdivision created it in the 1920s; however, Marine Max, when they develop -- when they acquired the property, they were told that that was part of the facility, so it was -- they paid taxes. The property appraiser collected taxes on it, had it in the tax rolls, and Marine Max filed an adverse possession claim to -- City of Miami Page Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Vice Chair Hardemon: Against the City? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: No, no, against -- Vice Chair Hardemon: Against who? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: This is a proceeding -- it was not done by me. It was done by an attorney in Clearwater who filed -- it is done with the State to establish a claim under the State statutes that this property really now belongs to the abutting property owner, who paid taxes to -- Vice Chair Hardemon: I understand how adverse possession works. My question is: Whose property rights are they trying to take when they tried to adversely possess it? Is it -- is that State property? Is that City property? Whose property is that? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: It was the developer's property; the developer who originally created the subdivision. Vice Chair Hardemon: So are you saying that that parcel of land was connected to the dark green parcel of land, and now, you're trying to take it? Or was that -- Ms. Marrero-Priegues: That parcel -- Vice Chair Hardemon: -- a completely different parcel of land all together? Because that's part -- that's one of my concerns. I know that -- as far as I've always understood the Marine Max issue that's been explained to me by the residents of Shorecrest, they have a huge issue with the adverse possession claim that Marine Max has been -- has made. I haven't been fully briefed on the adverse possession claim, and as I understood it, that was public property, where people had an opportunity to walk and make it to that body of water, and so that's why I'm trying to have an understanding. And so I know one issue -- so that's my issue with this whole application. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with this property just next to it. Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Okay. Vice Chair Hardemon: So is it currently, right now, in litigation for adverse possession? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: It is not in litigation. On April of 2008, Marine Max filed a Form -- FDR Form 42 with the property appraiser to file an adverse possession claim for this parcel. There is a period of -- there is an eight year period for that claim. Vice Chair Hardemon: And who are the parties? So you have -- I know you've been pay -- okay, you have Marine Max filing towards the adverse possession, but they're filing -- someone owns the property that they're paying these property taxes on. Who was the owner of the property? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: The owner is the Crain's Corlett Company, who were the original developers of this subdivision. They retained themselves the right-of-way that was created by that piece of property. Vice Chair Hardemon: And when you say, "right-of-way," you don't -- you mean public right-of-way? Because that's how -- when I hear "right-of-way," I only typically hear "right-of-way" when it relates to a public entity; not necessarily just owned as -- Ms. Marrero-Priegues: It can be a private right-of-way or a private street. Vice Chair Hardemon: Egresses, ingresses. City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Ms. Marrero-Priegues: It was private property. Vice Chair Hardemon: All -- so all of that is private, all of these parcels are pri -- Ms. Marrero-Priegues: It is now, because a claim has been filed and the period of time has lapsed, and our claim for that property has been perfected. Vice Chair Hardemon: And they didn't have an objection to it? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: No. I'm not the counsel who represented Marine Max in connection with that claim, but I have a letter from them that I provided to your Planning director, but I have a copy of it that I can provide to you. Vice Chair Hardemon: Please, through the Clerk, please. Mr. -- yes, please. Mr. Garcia: IfI may, and just to perhaps make the record a little bit clearer, I wanted to set forth that the sliver of land that you are addressing in your questions, Commissioner Hardemon, is not a subject of this application, so it is not affected by these proceedings in any way, whatsoever, and so what would happen by default to that sliver of land by -- as a result of this consideration is that as an undetermined or perhaps right-of-way type of land until the adverse possession process is completed, it would accept the zoning of the abutting parcels, as is the case with the half of the sliver to the west; the same would happen to the half of the sliver to the east. And once the adverse possession claim is finally settled, if it is, when it is, then the zoning issue will have been resolved, but for the time being, I just wanted to make it clear that it is not a subject of this application. Vice Chair Hardemon: Understood. And so -- and I just want to be clear, Mr. Garcia. The right-of-way, this right-of-way is not a public access right-of-way? Mr. Garcia: My understanding is -- and I am not an attorney, as you well know, so at some point in time, soon, I will probably defer to the City Attorneys Office, but my understanding is, having been involved with this particular issue for a significant amount of time, is that this is land that when this subdivision was originally platted, was held back by the developer, the original developer. Soon thereafter, at some point in time, it was actually allowed to be used by the predecessors in interest on the land to the present owner of the land, and ever since then, it's simply been associated with whatever use happened on the clearly private land on both sides. So the use has been enjoyed by the property owners on both sides, which happen to be the applicants -- or the subject of which interest happen to be the applicants before you today. Now, what that means in terms of legal rights to the property is something that I think is going to be determined by the courts, eventually, but the only other thing I can add to that is what you've already heard, which is that it is the subject of the adverse possession claim. Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay. I move PZ.3. Oh, well -- Chair Gort: Okay, it's been moved. Is there a second? Second by -- Commissioner Russell: Oh, second Chair Gort: -- Commissioner Russell. Any further discussion? Vice Chair Hardemon: My last question: So you have the support of the Shorecrest community? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: We did not meet with the Shorecrest community. I -- we met with the residents of 78th Street. We -- City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Vice Chair Hardemon: I thought there was an objection by Shorecrest. Mr. Garcia: We have -- what we have done is we have invited anyone who might be interested to a public meeting, which was actually held at the subject property. It was not very well attended, but some of the immediately abutting neighbors were in attendance, but what can do, certainly, above and beyond that, is between first and second reading, proactively reach out to the Shorecrest Neighborhood Association, see what their interested in doing. Vice Chair Hardemon: I would like that so we can clarify some of the issues, because these issues are -- have lingered, and so I'd like -- I typically like things to get done under my watch, but, you know, I want to make sure that when it gets done that people understand why. Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Understood. Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay? Ms. Marrero-Priegues: You have our commitment to do it. When we deferred the item last month, we committed to having a meeting, and we had the meeting, and your director was kind enough to make himself available and attend on that rainy, miserable night, on Tuesday night, and drive out there, and we'll do the same with the representatives from Shorecrest. Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Chair Gort: Okay, there's a motion and a second. Any fierther discussion? Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close it. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ 3. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 4-0. Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Thank you. Happy holidays to everybody. Vice Chair Hardemon: Same to you. PZ.4 ORDINANCE First Reading 11-00700zc 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-R" URBAN CENTER ZONE -RESTRICTED TO "T5-O" URBAN CENTER ZONE -OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 840 NORTHEAST 78TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00700zc 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 11-00700zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 11-00700zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 11-00700zc Legislation (v2).pdf 11-00700zc Exhibit.pdf City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 1,22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 LOCATION: Approximately 840 NE 78th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Marine Max East, Inc., Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 11-007001u. Item does not include a covenant. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on October 5, 2011 by a vote of 8-1. PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T5-R" Urban Center Zone - Restricted to "T5-O" Urban Center Zone - Open. Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez Chair Gort: PZ.4. Vice Chair Hardemon: I move PZ.4. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Vice Chairman Hardemon; second by Commissioner Carollo. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.4. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 4-0. PZ.5 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-00672Iu 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 5.31 ±ACRES OF THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY IDENTIFIED AS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF TRACT "D" OF WATSON ISLAND, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION" TO "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION, AND UTILITIES", AS DEPICTED IN "EXHIBITA", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 15-006721u 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00672Iu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-006721u Legislation (v2).pdf 15-006721u Exhibit.pdf 15-006721u-Submittal-Carlos Gimenez-Agreements Comparison.pdf 15-006721u-Submittal-Com. Russell -Construction Waiver Chalks Airlines, Inc..pdf LOCATION: Approximately the southern portion of Tract D of Watson Island [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File Ds 15-00672zc and 15-006721u1. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on September 2, 2015, by a vote of 6-3. PURPOSE: This will change the land use designation for the above property from "Public Parks and Recreation" to "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation, and Utilities". Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Vice Chair Hardemon, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.5 was deferred to the January 14, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. Chair Gort: PZ.5. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ.5 and PZ. 6 are companion items. These involve a proposal for a land use change and for a rezoning for two parcels of land actually joined as one parcel of land called Tract `D" in the application, on the southern portion of Watson Island. These are City -owned properties. This is before you on second reading, and the intent here is to take land that is presently zoned parks and recreation -- or civic space and change that zoning designation to civic institutional. As you may know, presently, that land, although it has a civic space designation, is actually occupied by two public facilities: one is a seaplane base and the other one is a heliport. The -- both facilities are certainly dated in their present state, and the intent of the City is to refurbish both to have them function as state-of-the-art facilities; in order to do so, civic institutional zoning is the -- really the appropriately fitting zoning designation; although I have to emphasize that in order to redevelop those properties or refurbish those properties, an exception process which requires a public hearing is mandatory; there are no exceptions to that. They have to go through an exception process, which goes to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and is appealable to this Commission. That said, we had recommended approval for the rezoning application and the land use change application, as did the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board in their meeting in the month of November. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. It's a public hearing. Is anyone in the public would like to address this issue? Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, Watson Island was zoned entirely parks and recreation up until not too many -- do you remember how long ago that City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 1,22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 changed? Mr. Garcia: I can say that it must be some time ago because, certainly, the Flagstone property has been commercial in nature for a very long time in terms of zoning. If you're referring to the balance of Watson -- I'm sorry -- through the Chair; I apologize. Chair Gort: Keep going. Mr. Garcia: May I address? Chair Gort: Keep going. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. If you are referring to the remainder of Watson Island, briefly, Mr. Cruz, to address your issue, it is the case that the zoning designation and the land use designation have been historically parks and recreation. The only nuance that I think bears mentioning on the record is that the previous zoning designation of parks and recreation under Zoning Ordinance 11000, the previous Zoning Ordinance did provide for the sorts of public facilities that exist on that land now. What happened as a result of our change over to Miami 21 is that Miami 21 makes a separation or a clear distinction between civic space and civic institutional, and because the uses that have been present there for a very long time now fall in the civic institutional side, we're seeking through this application to realign that factor. Mr. Cruz: The point I wanted to make -- and I have it on my computer, but in interest of time, I'm not going to pull it up -- all of Watson Island was zoned parks and recreation in the Zoning Map of 1975, and Chalks had been there since, I believe, the 1920s, so they are grandfathered in. "Why is it that we need to change the zoning now?" is a very valid question; moreover, I've heard unofficially that there's more planned here than simply refurbishing the seaplane base and the helicopter base, which, as far as I know, everybody thinks is a great idea. It'd be wonderful to have the seaplanes flying again, but I've heard there's other plans in the woodworks -- a very large restaurant or something to that effect; other large concrete buildings -- so this City Commission often entertains covenants for rezonings, which is something I disagree with; however, in this case, I think it would be a great idea if this rezoning was contingent upon a covenant that stated only a seaplane base and a helipad is going to be allowed in this location. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. Ben Fernandez: Commissioner Gort, Mr. Chair and Members of the Board, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf of Nautilus Enterprises, the operator of the Chalks Airlines Facility. We would encourage you to adopt both the land use change and the zoning change. Chalks is a nonconforming use. In order for Chalks to be able to obtain any permit that modifies the base outside of the parameters of what was historically grandfathered we're unable to do so because it is a nonconforming use. We cannot expand a nonconformity, so this zoning change is required in order to allow the seaplane base to modernize and to become a fully functional seaplane base. We would ask you to adopt these changes. Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the public? Anyone else in the public would like to address this issue? Seeing none, hearing none, we'll close the public hearings. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chair, ifI may? Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Min: The City does have a no net loss policy when it comes to parkland, so if the City grants the request to rezone and change the land use for PZ.5 and PZ.6, then you would also have to City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 grant the request for PZ.7 and PZ.8 because that is in -- you're offsetting the loss in the parkland. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Russell: Move for discussion. Move for discussion. Vice Chair Hardemon: Second. Chair Gort: Okay, you're recognized. Commissioner Russell: I feel like I'm coming late to the game on this one; although I did fy on Chalks as a child, but for them to have been there before it was even designated as parkland and for it to be now considered parkland is kind of -- it doesn't seem to fit. Would it be a beautiful park? Absolutely. And for us to be changing the designation seems like a negative thing, but it seems that the plans to bring back the seaplane base and the helicopter base are well in motion. I'm learning more about this as we go if I'm honest, and the swapping for the Rickenbacker parkland so that we don't show a net loss of parkland seems to be a -- it's a tradeoff that doesn't really create a tangible tradeoff Would we have ever created this into a true park space? I don't know. It seems that it is going for its further development. In addressing Mr. Cruz' concern, I had heard similar things. I have not had any meetings about the specifics of what is planned there, but it seems that it may -- the intention may be to develop it further beyond just seaplane, but possibly have restaurant and retail, but that's just rumors on the wind for me, so I'm assuming that the application -- it changes from parkland and the interest of the seaplane company is to not have any covenant that would change or limit their ability to do something on there, but obviously, if they were to go further, that would need approval from us as a Commission; am I correct? So that's my understanding of the situation. I'd love to hear more from those of you who have been around this situation longer than I. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually share some of the skepticism that Elvis mentioned. I haven't heard and it hasn't come to this Commission for years now with regards to what's going on with Chalks and with the seaplane. I know that even before Commissioner Hardemon was here, we took a vote in this Commission; funny enough, it also -- I think many of the members voted because ironically enough it was what Commissioner Russell said. It seems like previous Commissioners, previous Commissions had made certain decisions, the balls were rolling, and we couldn't go back; yet, I still haven't seen what was voted on years ago now. I lost track whether it's three, four, five years occurred, and I haven't had an update on it, so I am skeptical, and I don't see how I'm going to be supporting of this. And, you know, to the district Commissioner, I apologize, it's just -- again, going on my history with this, I haven't had enough information to see what's going on with it. As far as even -- I think MSEA (Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority) was handling it, but I think even before -- I don't know if they were taking minutes or not, or where they're at. I know that in a budget hearing, I requested -- I actually asked with regards to revenues that MSEA was supposed to be receiving, and it was told that it was coming up, but it hadn't yet. At that time, I spoke to the City Clerk, which confirmed that they don't actually hold the minutes of MSEA, so I'm just not comfortable. I would love it for -- to be a park. And by the way, I don't have a problem with the seaplanes, and I don't have a problem with Chalks. I, also, as a young kid, a native Miami, rode in at least the seaplane or one of them, but I was there, but again, I -- as well as with Mr. Cruz, I'm having difficulties with this, and I am skeptical. Chair Gort: Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized. City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, just -- I'm on the MSEA Board, regretfully, but, you know, my understanding of this item was that this was to bring in line the zoning with the use in terms of what's currently being used. I think they have -- there was litigation for a long time over -- Chair Gort: 20 years. Commissioner Suarez: How much? Chair Gort: About 20 years. Commissioner Suarez: 20 years. And it was recently settled, which means that we should be getting payments. Commissioner Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Right. So -- Commissioner Carollo: Or an update on -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh, absolutely, we should be getting an update and payments, my understanding. And so my understanding of this item was simply to bring into conformity the zoning and the land use with the use that it currently -- and the agreements that are in place from the City of Miami and MSEA to this particular company, but I -- if there's something more at play here or -- you know, I don't know, maybe the thing to do here is defer it and -- I don't know. Chair Gort: Let me tell you all, this has been part of an agreement, a settlement that was established because we were trying to take over the property for the last 10 or 15 years. Chalk did not comply with it. We went to court and we were not (UNINTELLIGIBLE), so, Francisco, maybe you can go further into it. The idea was this is an agreement that was taken place to get rid of the suit. Mr. Garcia: And so in response to similar questions and similar concerns, the only thing I have to offer you today is the guarantee that in order for anything to be done on this land that is the subject of this application, there would have to be an exception process, which requires a public hearing, which, if there were any opposition, would certainly end up before this Commission. As to a particular project, nothing has materialized or been submitted to our department for review. There is, I think, the understanding that the refurbishment of these two facilities should result on significantly improved facilities, additionally amenitized facilities, but that hasn't taken specific shape so far as an application to the Planning & Zoning Department is concerned. So, again, the conduit or the entry point for concerns to be expressed, it occurs to me might be the exception process, which I want to add is something that we have recourse to by virtue of this rezoning application. So it is the CI zoning designation that would require any refurbishment of these facilities to go through the exception process because, by default, if this were not to pass, then they would simply be treated as grandfathered facilities and they would be significantly curtailed into what -- as to what they could do, but that would be done as of right, as opposed to through an exception process, which requires a public hearing for your consideration. Chair Gort: If you all recall, Chalk Airline was run out of a trailer; am I correct? Commissioner Russell: Out of a what? Chair Gort: Out of a trailer; in other words, it was not really a facility where people feel comfortable going in and so on. I understand the -- under the new contract, the people are City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 willing to improve that a little bit more, and make it more accessible to individuals. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, quick follow-up question. Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: And I just want to verify. So if it doesn't pass, it could maintain parkland, and they still would be grandfathered in, so they could still do the same as what we did when I was a kid, and so realistically, it still can be parkland and these two operations could continue, correct? Or --? Mr. Garcia: They could continue -- yes, sir, to answer your question, Commissioner Carollo, they could continue to operate. The use is grandfathered. Commissioner Carollo: Right. Mr. Garcia: It is a legal nonconforming use. What the City is setting forth is that the facilities themselves are dated, and in order to refurbish them and bring them up to date, essentially, they are impeded from doing so under the parkland designation that they presently have. That's the obstacle that we're trying to overcome. Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Chair Gort: Go ahead, yeah. Commissioner Carollo: Another follow up: Have we seen plans or do we have the plans? So -- because it seems like a little bit like -- I get it, and you bring a viable argument, but I don't -- are we taking a leap of faith that they are going to enhance the facility? Have you seen any plans that -- and so forth? So I -- Mr. Garcia: No. I've stated previously plans have not been submitted to the Planning & Zoning Department for review at this moment in time. It is my understanding that plans at some level, perhaps the conceptual level, had been submitted to the MSEA Board. That said, any of those plans are by no means specifically approved, or they do not entail an entitlement insofar as they still have to go through the exception process, which requires review and approval. Chair Gort: Commissioner Russell. Commissioner Russell: It seems, Commissioner Carollo, that the concern may not be that they're not going to develop it, but that they're going to over -develop it, and that's what Mr. Cruz was bringing as his concern; that if we grant this change, that opens up the new Pandora's box of what could they become? Commissioner Carollo: Commissioner Russell, in all fairness, it could be both. Commissioner Russell: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: I mean, there's been talks of developing for many, many years and many, many sites, and after 15 years then finally is when, you know, a stone is turned. So realistically, it could be both, where, again, we grant this, and then three, four, five years is when they do it. And I'm not saying this is the case. And then, yes, then you have the other extreme where they are over -developing, and it seems to me like -- at least from my point of view, I would -- my preference is for it to maintain parkland; and still, they're submitting plans to the City, and they're a little bit more active in exactly what their plans are, what their vision is, and share it with us, and I guess that would be more of a carrot for me to say, "Okay, I see where we're City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 going," because right now, I'm flying in the dark. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I mean, I know that they're also governed by contracts, you know, obviously, that they have with MSEA, in terms of what they're obligated to do and what they can do. It's not the normal situation where you have, you know, a private property owner that can develop something to the level of whatever the zoning capacity is. They're also bound by whatever they're supposed to do under their agreements, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having them come and bring us a concept, and maybe defer this and have them bring us a concept, so we know exactly -- more or less. Maybe they won't submit plans that are tied to the development. Maybe you can require them to -- I don't know -- but at least come up with some sort of a concept so that we know what we're looking at, because I could tell you that, you know, for example, with the heliport, in particular, I know that it's a three-phase process that they're obligated, by the way, to build; they have to build. In order to be compliant with their lease with MSEA, they have to build a -- certain structures, and that just goes to the whole concept of having a heliport and wanting to make sure that it's a state -of -the art facility for people who use it. Right now, I don't even think -- I'm not even sure it's operational. In the seaplane case, the structure that they have there, I think, is -- it's pretty dilapidated, so -- Mr. Fernandez: If I may, through the Chair? Chair Gort: Sure. Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner, our client has been paying rent since August of -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- 2014. I think the rent has been there. It's unreasonable to require them to prepare full blown plans if the land use and zoning aren't even in place. At this point, they have a nonconforming use. As the Chairman has indicated, it's been operating out of a trailer, essentially. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: They can't even conduct a minor repair that's outside of the building, historic building footprint, so changing the land use and zoning at this point does nothing, because, as your director indicated, every single use requires an exception, which requires a full review by the Planning Department, and we're prepared to go through that process, but we need this first step to take place in order to be able to do that. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, question. Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I yield to Commissioner Russell, but -- Commissioner Russell: Thank you. I want to -- and I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what the extent of our current contract is with the tenant. How -- what -- how long were we --? Commissioner Carollo: That was one of my questions. Commissioner Russell: Yeah. City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Carollo: Do -- you mentioned as far as paying rent. Do you know what's the amount of that rent? Mr. Fernandez: I would have to defer to MSEA. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And it's paid directly to MSEA, correct? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Carollo: So it should be showing up in their budget, and that was part of in the past, what I had mentioned, but anyways. Commissioner Suarez: But it's -- it had been escrowed because there was a litigation, and then (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Carollo: So -- and that's part of what I'm saying. Commissioner Suarez: Right. It -- Commissioner Carollo: When it didn't show up and -- Commissioner Suarez: Up until recently, it was -- Commissioner Carollo: -- entangled and -- Commissioner Suarez: -- escrowed in the registry of the court, and then it was -- right, let go. Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner, it's $6,000 a month. Commissioner Russell: If I may. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Russell: Chair, I've spent the majority of today trying to pretend like I know what I'm doing, but at this point, I really have to tell you that I'm -- there's a point in -- Commissioner Suarez: It's 7 -- no, it's 8 o'clock. It's okay. Commissioner Russell: Yeah. Well, this is the moment I'd really like -- this is a moment that we can all talk openly; because of sunshine law, we can't, normally, and this is some time that you can teach me something, because it seems that what we're really talking about here is what is our City's true vision for at least this portion of Watson Island, and Watson Island, in general? And ifI understand correctly, this is waterfront property. And ifI understand correctly, normally, waterfront property should be decided by the public. And here we are, deciding should we call it "park" or "not park"? And I understand we're already in a contract to continue the seaplane activity, but the people haven't had a voice in this. It seems that it's governed by MSEA. And so I guess my open and naive question is, why is MSEA able to make the decisions on an issue like this without it going to referendum? Commissioner Carollo: Because Commission allowed it to. Chair Gort: That was changed -- when was the MSEA took over the property? Mr. Min: Right. And I don't know the dates that we're talking about, but I do believe that the City of Miami Page20 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 particular lease when it comes to Chalks predated that requirement in the City Charter. Commissioner Carollo: I -- no, I disagree with -- I respectfully disagree. I'm pretty comfortable saying that it came to the Commission, and it was approved. I mean, if the Commission would not have approved it, and it could have forced that it do go to a public referendum. Commissioner Russell: I mean, is there a greater piece of waterfront land in Miami than Watson Island? It's surrounded and so many -- Commissioner Carollo: I may argue against that, because I could say Bayfront Park -- Commissioner Russell: Of course. Commissioner Carollo: -- and I could say Museum Park. Commissioner Russell: Of course, of course; sorry to -- bring an opinion, yeah. Commissioner Carollo: But your point is well taken, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Commissioner Russell: And I do say this sincerely, because I don't fully understand the mechanism by which MSEA is able to operate without it going to referendum for such a great decision of whether we make this waterfront space parkland or commercial. Chair Gort: My suggestion is, according to the motion that was made today, you are now a board member of MSEA so -- Commissioner Russell: Am I? Chair Gort: Yeah, for your information. Commissioner Suarez: You are, actually. Chair Gort: I just want you to know that, okay? Commissioner Russell: Great. Commissioner Suarez: Welcome to our world. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Excuse me, Chair. Actually, no; that was just reappointing Commissioner Suarez as the Vice Chairman of MSEA. Commissioner Suarez: Oh, wonderful. Mr. Hannon: You all can get to Commissioner Russell on the first meeting in January, when it comes to an appointment to MSEA. Chair Gort: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: I'm just thrilled; I'm tickled. Chair Gort: You got it. Commissioner Carollo: You could appoint yourself. Commissioner Suarez: I think you should. City of Miami Page21 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Russell: To better understand it, I'd rather be on it than not, honestly -- Chair Gort: Sure. Commissioner Russell: -- ifI can be involved. Chair Gort: Of course. Commissioner Russell: So the terms of the agreement as it currently stands with the tenant is for how long? What are we -- what is our obligation to them? Because I guess that would affect our decision here today. Do we know? Chair Gort: Why don't you let the attorney answer that. Mr. Min: We'll look at the agreement, but off the top of my head, I believe it's a 30-year term. I believe it was recently, within the past two years, there was a sublease. Commissioner Carollo: I'm going on memory, but what we passed in the Commission, I'm pretty comfortable -- Mr. Fernandez: A 30-year term -- Commissioner Carollo: With two 10 years -- Mr. Fernandez: Two extensions. Commissioner Carollo: -- additional. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Carollo: So up to 50 years. Chair Gort: Now, another question: Wasn't all this agreement part of a settlement in court? Mr. Min: Yes, sir. Chair Gort: Okay. I just want to make sure everybody gets all the information. This is part of the settlement that we been in court, I think, for the last 20 years, as I recall. Mr. Min: And one other thing: Again, I don't know the exact date that it may -- all of this may have happened, but pursuant to Section 29(B) of the City Charter, it indicates that a referendum is not necessary when you lease the property to another government agency for a government purpose, so the City of Miami leased the property to MSEA, which is considered a government agency, pursuant to State Statute, which is why, under 29(B), the referendum was not required. Commissioner Carollo: And then -- ifI may, Mr. Chairman? Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: -- MSEA, in turn, leased it to Chalks. Mr. Min: Yes, sir, correct. Commissioner Carollo: As opposed to the City -- City of Miami Page22 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: -- direct -leasing it to them. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: But it's an interlocal agreement. Chair Gort: No, no, wait, wait. That's not my understanding. My understanding is Chalk was there before MSEA took over; am I correct? Mr. Min: Unfortunately, I don't know if that -- Chair Gort: Well, look at the history, and it was. Mr. Fernandez: Since 1926. Chair Gort: It was. You can get your attorney, you can do that. Mr. Min: Yes, I -- Chair Gort: Chalk was there before the City tried to take that over. The City was not able to take it over, and we were sued. We've been in court now 15 to 20 years. Part of the settlement to be able to get our property back, it was the settlement and those were the agreement of the settlement, it's my understanding. Mr. Min: I believe that's correct, sir. Chair Gort: Come on, you guys. Stop and let the attorneys -- Commissioner Russell: Which would mean as part of the terms of that settlement, we should continue to assist the tenant in furthering their goals? Chair Gort: Correct. The settlement was with the -- maintaining the seaport and the heliport. Commissioner Russell: For the record, I'm in no way against the seaplane. Like I said, I flew it as a child. I think it's a great amenity for our City. It's simply trying to get up to speed in understanding the time sensitivity of this issue, because I feel like I'd like more time to fully understand it, but I'd like to hear more. Chair Gort: That's fine. Commissioner Russell: If this is a time -sensitive issue for tenant and for -- Vice Chair Hardemon: Voting it down would be the -- Commissioner Russell: Yeah. I was going to say -- Commissioner Suarez: Let me ask it this way: If you were -- if you -- first of all, I think, you know, the concerns expressed by Mr. Cruz are legitimate concerns, you know, in terms of "What are we getting?" I think that's an important component here, but it's got to also interplay with "What do they already have and what has already been" -- good, bad, or indifferent -- Commissioner Russell: Right. City of Miami Page23 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: -- because it's true what the Commissioner said. You know, we sort of inherited a lot of this stuff. Believe it or not, even we inherited a lot of this stuff, because this stuff even predates us being here, so I would say that if it takes -- if you -- you haven't asked for more time on any item today to be more comfortable with where you need to be, and I think it's a perfectly reasonable request to say, "Look, I need a little bit more time to get comfortable with what are the -- all these mechanisms, corollary agreements, settlements, other governments, quasi -governments or whatever, " for you to feel that you're making an informed decision. I don't have any problem with that. Vice Chair Hardemon: I think that's most responsible and I withdraw my motion. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Gort: I think you could defer until the second meeting of January. Commissioner Suarez: No, first meeting, I think, no? Commissioner Russell: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: First meeting. Commissioner Russell: Yeah. Motion to defer to first meeting in January. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Mr. Min: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I stated before, concerning the loss of parkland, I would suggest that you may want to also defer PZ.7 and 8 -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Min: -- so that there's no issue with that. Commissioner Suarez: Of course, of course. Chair Gort: In the meantime, let's make sure the Administration informs the MSEA that they get together with Commissioner Russell -- Commissioner Suarez: Their new board member. Chair Gort: -- so they can put him up to date to the whole process, okay? Commissioner Russell: Yeah. Chair Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Mr. Hannon: And Chair -- Chair Gort: Let's go to PZ.6. Yes. Mr. Hannon: Just for the record, sir. So that was items PZ.5, 6, 7, and 8 that were continued to the January 14, 2016 Commission meeting. City of Miami Page24 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Chair Gort: Correct. Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair. Chair Gort: Thank you. PZ.6 ORDINANCE 15-00672zc Second Reading 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 OF 5.31 ±ACRES OF THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY IDENTIFIED AS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF TRACT "D" OF WATSON ISLAND, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "CS" CIVIC SPACE TO "Cl" CIVIC INSTITUTIONAL, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBITA", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00672zc 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00672zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00672zc Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00672zc Exhibit.pdf 15-00672zc-Submittal-Carlos Gimenez-Agreements Comparison.pdf 15-00672zc-Submittal-Com. Russell -Construction Waiver Chalks Airlines, Inc..pdf LOCATION: Approximately the southern portion of Tract D of Watson Island [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FI NDI NG(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-006721u. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on September 2, 2015, by a vote of 6-3. PURPOSE: This will change the zoning classification for the above property from "CS" Civic Space to "Cl" Civic Institutional. Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Vice Chair Hardemon, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.6 was deferred to the January 14, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. Please see item PZ.5 for minutes relating to iteni PZ.6. PZ.7 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-00672Iu 1 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 City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO §163.3187, FLORI DA STATUTES, BY ASSIGNING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF "PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION" TO A NON -DESIGNATED ACREAGE OF REAL PROPERTIES OF APPROXIMATELY 8.69 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE TRACT OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DEPICTED IN "EXHIBIT A", HEREBY ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-006721u1 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-006721u1 Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-006721u1 Legislation (v2).pdf 15-006721u1 Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately the northern portion of the tract of land commonly known as Rickenbacker Causeway [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File IDs 15-00672zc1 and 15-006721u. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on June 3, 2015, by a vote of 9-2. PURPOSE: This will assign the land use designation of "Public Parks and Recreation" to the above property. Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Vice Chair Hardemon, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ 7 was deferred to the January 14, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. PZ.8 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-00672zc1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY ASSIGNING A CS "CIVIC SPACE" ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO A NON -DESIGNATED AREAAPPROXIMATELY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE TRACT OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DEPICTED IN "EXHIBITA", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00672zc1 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00672zc1 Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00672zc1 Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00672zc1 Exhibit.pdf City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 LOCATION: Approximately the northern portion of the tract of land commonly known as Rickenbacker Causeway [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of City of Miami FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-006721u1 PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on June 3, 2015, by a vote of 9-2. PURPOSE: This will assign the zoning classification of "CS" Civic Space to the above property. Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Vice Chair Hardemon, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.8 was deferred to the January 14, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. PZ.9 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00974Iu 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, FLORI DA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.17 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS THE EASTERN PORTION OF A PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 0.40 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4201 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-009741u 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00974Iu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-009741u Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-009741u Legislation (v2).pdf 15-009741u Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 4201 NW 2nd Avenue [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Steven Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of 4201 Design West, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-00974zc. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 October 21, 2015, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will change the Land Use Designation of the eastern portion of the above property from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Russell, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Chair Gort: PZ.9. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ.9 and PZ 10 are also companion items. These are respectively for a land use change and a rezoning at a property; 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue. It is before you on first reading, and the proposed change, as you have it on your material, is from T3-L to T4-L and T4-O. That application has been recommended for approval. It was amended by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board to change slightly the boundaries, and it -- the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board itself also recommended for approval. I will describe briefly what the change entails, and I believe you may have images that show it on your backup material. The parcel fronting on 2nd Avenue directly is recommended to be rezoned to T4-O, which is a continuation of the zoning immediately to the south; and the lot immediately to the east of that, which is a -- sort of a north/south-oriented lot, is proposed to be changed to T4-L. If you require additional explanation, I'm happy to do so. We recommend approval, and happy to answer any questions. Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Steve Wernick: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Steve Wernick, address of 1 Southeast 3rdAvenue, here on behalf of the applicant, 4201 Design West, LLC (Limited Liability Company). I'm proud to say that the applicant and both representatives of Buena Vista Heights and Buena Vista Stakeholders have worked closely together over the last couple months. We originally had filed an application for T4-O for the entire site, mainly to allow the adaptive use of the property, which is an old daycare center, has the eastern portion of the property, which could not be used for any accessory parking or anything commercial. In working with the neighborhood associations, they expressed some concern at the time about making sure there was an appropriate transition, and so we were able to come up with a solution that worked for everyone, which was T4-O on 2nd Avenue; T4-L on the eastern portion of the property. That was what we presented at the hearing in front of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. They recommended approval of that modification unanimously. We do have representatives from Buena Vista Heights that are here tonight; and Buena Vista Stakeholders has issued a letter of support, even though they couldn't be here. So we're asking that you approve PZ.9 and then PZ.10, as recommended by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. And just for the record, I'll put in the proposed zoning map, which is what was shown to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. Vice Chair Hardemon: Please. Thank you. And I'm sure we'll have an opportunity for public hearing, but just seeing Buena Vista Heights here, without any objection, because I know they would have walked up here pretty quickly if they had some type of objection, makes me a lot more comfortable with this item, besides the changes that you made. So, you know, I applaud you for making those changes, and with those changes being said, I move to approve PZ.9. Commissioner Russell: Second. Chair Gort: Moved to approve by Commissioner Hardemon; second by Commissioner Russell. Any further discussion? First reading ordinance. City of Miami Page28 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Vice Chair Hardemon: Public hearing. Chair Gort: Public hearing. Is anyone in the public like to address this issue? Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, especially my district Commissioner and the district Commissioner for this property, this is a very troubling issue. I've handed to you an excerpt from Miami 21. Sadly, this is part of our Zoning Code that is routinely disregarded within the City of Miami. Commissioner -- Mr. Garcia: I object to that statement, sir. Chair Gort: That's all right. You can answer. 171 give you an opportunity later, don't worry. Go ahead sir. Commissioner Suarez: What'd he say? Mr. Cruz: Commissioner Russell, if I may direct your attention to the highlighting at the top of the page: All changes shall maintain the goals of this Code to preserve neighborhoods. "Shall." If you turn the page -- the third page; not the second the third page -- one of the requirements of an application is to explain -- in the highlighting -- why the existing zoning is inappropriate. They're required to explain why the existing zoning is inappropriate. And at the last page, the highlighting says: For rezonings, they have to be done in a manner which maintains the goals of this Miami 21 Code to preserve neighborhoods. Now, if you look at the zoning map of what is proposed -- I'm sure you have it in your packet -- you see that they're going to cross the line. They're going to cross the line from the commercial into the residential. They are not going to preserve the neighborhood. There's nothing in the application that can prove that that is appropriate. There's nothing that can prove that the existing zoning is inappropriate, because that exact zoning of having duplex behind the commercial exists all throughout the City, and as you can see, exists all throughout this corridor. What is being proposed here is wrong; it's not preserving the neighborhood. I'm disappointed that these good citizens went along with this. They're my friends but -- Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Hardemon: I think you -- but I think now you've gone a little too far. Your time has expired, though. One of the things I want to make light of that you brought up, sir -- and I'll allow you to have a chance to respond -- you know, when we read these bits of information, it says: The Code to preserve neighborhoods. And the opposite of preserving a neighborhood would be destroying the neighborhood. And so the first thing I would look at, even taking your argument, I would say, "Does this destroy a neighborhood?" And I don't see this as destroying a neighborhood, this zoning change; me, personally, that's the way that I read it. And the next section where you talk about the analysis shall explain why the zoning change is appropriate and why the existing zoning is inappropriate, and so I'd like for you to tell me -- it doesn't state in this whether the inappropriateness is in the nature of -- for what you're planning to do as the property owner, but I'm assuming that that's what it is; if not, can you please inform me? Mr. Wernick: Yes, absolutely, and I apologize for not going into more detail earlier. The exact justifications for our request were included in our letter of intent with the application. We have sections describing specifically how the application meets the analysis, so I did not mean to skip over that, and, you know, I'm aware that we have some requirements we need to meet, and it's in the materials. That being said, I think there's two things I want to mention. This is one folio, one property folio one property address, and it's been this way for 30-something years, before Miami 21 was adopted. So when Miami 21 came in, it created T4-L and T3 -- it gave it -- one single property -- split zoning. This daycare center has a playground on the eastern portion of the property that today could not be used. It's not -- basically, the zoning, as is, makes the existing City of Miami Page29 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 building and use nonconforming, so what we were trying to do was rezone the property so that the building can be adaptively reused and be beneficial to the neighborhood, because right now, what you have is an empty building, with no neighborhood -oriented commercial. In fact, Northwest 2nd Avenue in this stretch is lacking businesses; it's lacking services for the neighborhood. It's a street that many people who live in the neighborhood don't particularly want to walk on, there's not a lot of services for them there, so we actually see this application being beneficial to the residential neighborhood, because it preserves that transition by going T4-O, T4-L, which, actually to the benefit of both Buena Vista Stakeholders and Buena Vista Heights. It was their idea that the transition be preserved so that T4-L, which has limited commercial use, but does allow for some flexibility, would be that transition between 2nd Avenue, with a T4-O; and the T3 being the existing conditions there, but it also allows for new businesses to come in that can serve the residential neighborhood. So I believe wholeheartedly, and I believe the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, who recommended this unanimously and congratulated us for working together for something that the neighborhood saw as a beneficial change, and a way to bring commercial -- a very appropriate commercial investment and new businesses that can be accessed for the neighborhood. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. I'd like -- Francisco, you were going to answer. I stopped you. Go ahead and answer. Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. Yes, I'm happy to do so. And I want to clarify my previous objection, and that is an objection to Mr. Cruz; not necessarily agreeing with the application, or taking issue with the application, but I wanted to take specific exception to the fact that he made the following statement: That your Planning & Zoning Department routinely disregards the tenets of the Zoning Ordinance. That, I believe, is unnecessary, and simply not true. That said, as pertains to this application, the reason we feel it is certainly worthy of your consideration and we are recommending approval is that what it does is it begins to provide a transition between what is a commercial corridor -- in this case Northwest 2nd Avenue -- and a low density residential area. I will tell you that one of the strongest points of Miami 21 as a Zoning Ordinance that was simply not addressed by the previous Zoning Ordinance is precisely the provision of a zoning designation that allows for a transition to take place; an orderly transition to take place. As you know, the previous Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance 11000, simply had intense commercial development immediately abutting low density residential. Miami 21 sought to address that by introducing the "L" category, and it is the "L" category that is being proposed here to provide for that transition; that is, not only -- that is -- Chair Gort: IT (Information Technology), what's going on? Mr. Garcia: -- not -- Chair Gort: It's Cruz' computer that's creating that. Mr. Garcia: So as I was saying -- and I'll finish quickly -- that is not only entirely appropriate, but frankly, something worth pursuing in many areas citywide; in particular -- and we're very cautious about it, because we understand that there are some concerns in many well established residential areas, but whenever we have the opportunity -- and you will hear this conversation happen time and time again -- to begin to introduce a transitional zoning designation to properly buffer the low density residential areas from the commercial corridors, we will certainly strive to do so and present it to you in that fashion, because I think it's an example worth following. Happy to answer any questions. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Hardemon: Mr. Chairman -- City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Chair Gort: Commissioner. Vice Chair Hardemon: I'm -- if -- the public comments section is there, and I'm perfectly comfortable moving the vote. Chair Gort: Okay, anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public hearings. You have a motion? Vice Chair Hardemon: So moved. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Vice Chairman Hardemon. Is there a second? Commissioner Suarez: I thought it was -- Vice Chair Hardemon: Thought we already had a motion. We already had a motion, right? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, sir; good to go. Chair Gort: Okay. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item PZ.9. Commissioner Suarez? Commissioner Suarez: Yes, and I'd just like to explain that I think we're sort of talking past each other a little bit in the sense that -- first of all, I'm very motivated by the district Commissioner's support on this item, and also the new Commissioner's seconding the item. Secondly -- and this goes to Francisco's point, which is it's not inconsistent to say if you're doing a transition that you're trying to preserve neighborhoods, and we've had that discussion many times, because there is that rub with 11000, where you had it and you have that phenomenon everywhere, and I know Elvis and I have talked about it, as well -- with these 12-story, 14-story, 16-story buildings next to a single-family residential neighborhood; that just doesn't make sense. And so whether the philosophy of creating that transitional buffer is a good or bad one, I suppose it's one we could debate, but I think it's pretty evident that that's what Miami 21 contemplates. We can debate it, and I'm willing to debate it more, and I think you're going to see more of this, so we definitely going to -- we're going to need to debate this more often, but the other thing that motivates me is the Planning & Zoning Department's recommendation. I mean, rarely is the Planning & Zoning -- I'm sorry -- the Appeal Board's recommendation. You know, rarely do they -- are they seen as a hyper -zoning entity, and they approved it, 11 to nothing, both, so I think that's also instructive for me. Thank you. Mr. Hannon: Continuing with the roll call on PZ.9. Commissioner Carollo? Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Russell? Commissioner Russell: Yes. Mr. Hannon: Vice Chair Hardemon? Vice Chair Hardemon: For. Mr. Hannon: Chair Gort? City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Chair Gort: Yes. Let me ask a question, Francisco. My understanding is in Miami 21, when it was passed, 90 percent of the property within the City of Miami were out of compliance? Mr. Garcia: Yes. And I would -- Chair Gort: Thank you. Mr. Garcia: I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Chair Gort: Now, the second is Miami 21 would have been great in an open area where nothing has been built, and then you can establish, start doing that. How many times have we amended Miami 21? Mr. Garcia: We amend it basically on a bi-monthly basis, sir. Chair Gort: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Hannon: And for the record, the ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0. Chair Gort: Thank you. PZ.10 ORDINANCE 15-00974zc First Reading 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-L "URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T4-L "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" AND T4-L "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T4-O "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4201 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00974zc 01-28-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00974zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00974zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00974zc Legislation (v3).pdf 15-00974zc Exhibit 1.pdf 15-00974zc Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 4201 NW 2nd Avenue [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Steven Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of 4201 NW 2 Avenue, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-009741u. Item does not include a covenant. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval, with conditions, on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will allow a Zoning Classification change from T3-L "Urban City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 1,22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Transect Zone- Limited" to T4-L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" and T4-L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" to T4-O "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Open" for the above property. Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Chair Gort: PZ.10. Vice Chair Hardemon: I move to pass PZ.10. Chair Gort: It's been moved by Vice Chairman Hardemon. Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Second. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): And can I just clarify -- Chair Gort: Second by Commissioner Carollo. Mr. Min: If I can clarify for the record, I believe the proposal suggested by the applicant is that the rezoning is from a T3-L and T4-L to a T4-L and a T4-O. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): That is correct. Steve Wernick: And it's the same -- that's the modification that the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board recommended. Mr. Min: So based on that -- The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.10. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, as amended, 5-0. Chair Gort: Thank you. PZ.11 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00969Iu 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 1.07±ACRES OF THE REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865 AND 3875 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 1,22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 15-009691u 01-28-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-009691u Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-009691u Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-009691u Legislation (v2).pdf 15-009691u Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, and 3875 Day Avenue [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ethan Wasserman, Esquire, on behalf of Coconut Grove Gateway, LLC. FI N DI NG (S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the parcels located at 3875, 3865, 3851 and 3841 Day Avenue and denial of the parcels located at 3860, 3850, 3840 and 3830 Day Avenue. See companion File ID 15-00969zc. PURPOSE: This will change the land use designation for the above properties from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.11 was continued to the January 28, 2016, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.12 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00969zc 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-O "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", WITH A NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, TO T4-O "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", WITH A NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, AND 3875 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00969zc 01-28-16 FR CC Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00969zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00969zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00969zc Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00969zc Exhibit A.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, and 3875 Day Avenue [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ethan Wasserman, Esquire, on behalf of Coconut Grove City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 PZ.13 15-00949wta Gateway, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 (3841, 3851, 3865 and 3875 Day Avenue) and denial of Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 (3860, 3850, 3840 and 3830 Day Avenue). Item does not include a covenant. See companion File ID 15-009691u. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 9-2. PURPOSE: This will allow a zoning classification change for the above properties from T3-O "Sub -urban Transect Zone - Open" with a NCD-3 Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District, to T4-O "General Urban Transect Zone - Open" with a NCD-3 Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ12 was continued to the January 28, 2016, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING THE APPEAL, THEREBY APPROVING WARRANT PERMIT NO. 2014-0018, ALLOWING OUTDOOR SEATING FORA NEW RESTAURANT, WHICH ENCOMPASSES A WAIVER FOR AN ADAPTIVE USE OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING TO A RESTAURANT USE PROVIDING A TOTAL OF SIX (6) PARKING SPACES ON SITE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5599 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 15-00949wta Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00949wta Appeal to City Commission.pdf 15-00949wta Warrant Decision, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00949wta Appeal to PZAB.pdf 15-00949wta Appeal to PZAB- 2.pdf 15-00949wta Legislation (v1).pdf 15-00949wta-Submittal-Ben Fernandez -Parking Lease Agreement.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 5599 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPELLANT(S): Kevin Hinds and SD Technology USA, LLC, and Kirk de Leon, Esquire APPLICANT(S): Fritz Masson FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval, with conditions, of the warrant and denial of the appeal. See supporting documentation. City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 PURPOSE: Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon R-15-0550 Chair Gort: PZ 11. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): I believe we can skip over to PZ.13; 11 and 12 were continued previously, sir. Chair Gort: I'm sorry, what was that again? Mr. Garcia: PZ.13, I believe is the next item. Chair Gort: That's right, we -- okay. Mr. Garcia: Right. And so I'll read PZ.13 into the record. This is before you as a resolution, and it is a warrant appeal for a property at 5599 Biscayne Boulevard. I'll mention to you briefly -- and I'll let the applicants introduce the facts of the case -- that your Planning & Zoning Department approved a warrant for an outdoor seating area. That approval was with conditions, containing some restrictions as to how that use might be implemented, and those are on the record after they discussed them. And the granting of the warrant was subsequently appealed by some abutting or neighboring property owners to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, which approved the appeal and denied the warrant. Tonight before you then is the appeal of the original applicants of the rescission of the warrant by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and I'm certainly happy to discuss the merits of the case. Suffice it to say by way of brief introduction that the originally single-family residential structure that is on the site is being proposed to be repurposed as a restaurant. I have to emphasize that the restaurant use is allowed by right as part of the zoning for that property. What is the subject of the warrant is actually the outdoor eating space that they are proposing to undertake in front of the property, and it is pertaining to that outdoor dining area that the conditions of the warrant apply, and those have to do with limited noise, limited lighting, parking arrangements, et cetera. That said, I'll yield to the applicant and I'm happy to answer any questions you may. Ben Fernandez: Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the Board, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf of the appellant, Trilussa, Inc. I'm joined by the operator of this proposed restaurant, which is to be called "Casa Abodega, " Mr. David Ranucci; as well as our project designer, Mr. Fulvio Rottigni. This is a property that is located along Biscayne Boulevard at one of the dead-end streets that lead into Morningside, and that is an image of the intersection right there. It's an ideal location for a restaurant. We're here appealing the decision of the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) that reversed the warrant approval. We believe that there is substantial and competent evidence in the record to support the warrant approval. This site is a site that was developed as an office building originally, and was subsequently modified over the years. There are six parking spaces on the property, and the adaptive reuse of the property to a restaurant use will exceed the parking requirement. It has six spaces; only four are required. In addition to that, the operator has entered into a lease agreement with the property across the street to utilize that property for additional parking and valet services. (INAUDIBLE) here. The microphone? Thank you. This property across the street, so that any entering cars can be stationed here, move across into the property across the street, and exit back onto Biscayne Boulevard. There are eight available parking spaces on the property to the north, so that you would have six plus an additional eight immediately in the City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 vicinity of the restaurant. In addition to that, the operator has a valet agreement to park additional vehicles offsite, but more importantly, we've been here all day, talking to the most affected neighbors, and I think we've reached an agreement with them. And I don't want to speak for them, but we have a series of conditions that we have negotiated, and I can read those into the record to save everyone a little bit of time, and I believe that Mr. Suarez -Rivas has a copy of them, as well, but let me just say that this is going to be an Italian restaurant. There's one in Rome; there's one in Milan; one in Greenwich Village; and this will be the second one in the United States. It's a very fine, high quality Italian restaurant. That being said, the conditions that we have agreed to are the following seven conditions: One is that the warrant and the waiver shall not be transferable, and any change of operator shall require a new warrant and new waiver. Number 2: The operator shall advise employees and patrons not to park on Northeast 55th Terrace, Northeast 56th Street, or within the residential areas of Morningside. Number 3: The maximum amount of outdoor seating is 12 seats. Number 4: No patrons shall be offered seating outdoors after 10 p.m., and any person sitting outside shall be moved indoors by 11 p.m. Number 5: Operator shall develop and construct a masonry wall where the property abuts single-family homes, including 455 Northeast 55th Terrace and 448 Northeast 56th Street; those would be the two homes abutting the subject restaurant located here and here. You would have a new eight foot masonry wall buffering the impacts to the residential area. Number 6: The operator shall also develop and construct an eight foot masonry wall where the property at 465 Northeast 56th Street abuts the property at 445 Northeast 56th Street. That is the property across the street, and Mr. De Leon, who you will be hearing from in just a few moments lives next to that property. An eight foot wall would be developed between his property and the property that is the subject of the lease for additional parking spaces, so that the entire operation would be fully buffered. And finally: The operator shall provide the City Commission with a status report at a City Commission meeting, with specific notice to the Morningside Civic Association; Kirk De Leon, at 465 Northeast 56th Street; Kevin Hines, at 448 Northeast 56th Street; and SD Technologies, at 455 Northeast 55th Terrace. Those are the conditions that we've talked about to date, and that we're in agreement on. I think that Mr. De Leon may have a few more things to say about them. Kirk De Leon: No, I believe we're in agreement -- good afternoon. Kirk De Leon. I reside at 465 Northeast 56th Street. I'm here today with the three original appellants of the warrant that was granted to the operator. We do not have agreement on the last point. It is our understanding -- our request is that a status conference be held for the City Commission meeting, publicly noticed, and with notice given to the three of us in particular, with regards to the compliance with these conditions; and that their certificate of use becomes -- is subject to their compliance with these conditions. And so we -- let me take a step back. As the adjoining neighbors, we did not even get notice for today, so we come today unprepared, and if we cannot have resolution today, we would ask that this matter be continued so that we could hire an expert and defend ourselves appropriately. Like I said, none of the three persons who filed this appeal got notice today. It was a neighbor who called me and told me that this matter was scheduled before the City Commission today, and that is why I, after sending email to my neighbors are here today, so we have -- in the spirit of trying to resolve this matter, we have come up with these ways to ameliorate the clear impact this will have to us, the three abutting neighbors, as well as to the neighborhood in general. The parking issue, which is relevant to the warrant, because it does impact the nonconformity of this property, which is a direct -- which this Code directly prohibits is a significant issue, and I would like to ask the Commissioners, and in particular, my Commissioner, what assistance can be provided to us; especially those on 56th Street and 57th, and Northeast 55th Terrace, where the impact of this parking will be severe? The restaurateur is promising that he will instruct his employees and his patrons not to park there, but the reality is they park there now to visit the restaurants and other amenities that are afforded that are on -- in this upper northeast section of town. Is there any assistance for us with regards to developing some kind of parking prohibition for those neighbors? With regards to Prong Number 7 -- and I'll turn it over -- we really need to have some teeth in this agreement, such that their CU (Certificate of Use) would be subject to being revoked if they are not in compliance with both the City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 requirements of the department set out, as well as those requirements that we're asking the Board adopt and make their own, so that they would be enforceable. And we need, as well, some -- at least some timelines. What was not mentioned there is that the wall needs to be constructed within six months, such that by the time we come back to the status meeting, we can report to you that there has been compliance of these matters. So we seek your assistance in order to get this agreement completed, and on those terms, we could probably resolve it today; otherwise, I would ask for a continuance to allow me to be able to defend myself, and be able to bring an expert here today to testify with regard to the impact that we will suffer as a result of this -- what I believe -- violation of the Code in terms of the nonconformity of this property. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Russell: Chair? Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Russell: Mr. De Leon, thank you very much. I absolutely do remember knocking at your door, maybe six months ago, in Morningside, and as I knocked many, many doors, this is exactly what I knew was coming, and the convergence of the commercial adaptive reuse and redevelopment on Biscayne Boulevard and the quality of life of the neighbors in Morningside. And I heard it, and even particularly on this project, even months ago when I was knocking, that this would come, and here it is, on my first day. And so I'd like to start by absolutely congratulating all parties involved for getting together on this in a very amicable way, including the residents, Mr. Hinds and Mr. De Leon; the restaurant owner, who I met with -- and I believe I have a Jennings disclosure to read on all of these -- who I do believe is very sincerely trying to create a local family restaurant that, hopefully, will be cherished by these very neighbors, if they're not so put out by it, and that's why we're here. So I'd like to congratulate them for coming to the table and making best efforts to meet the needs of the neighbors; not only in creating a good restaurant, but in meeting their needs of how this restaurant will affect their quality of life; and, of course, the attorneys involved, who I've met in my office, and we've been talking throughout this week, and actually come to an agreement. And I'd also like to thank Mr. Cruz for getting involved as a neighborhood activist, and not only just speaking for the two neighbors, but for all of Morningside and what we're trying to accomplish. So this agreement is basically going to really try to mitigate the effects of not only the outdoor seating, which the restaurant has minimized now from their original plans of a deck going across the entire front of the building to now just the northwest corner that's closest to Biscayne Boulevard; but also the noise from that; and, of course, all of the cars coming in on the valet parking. And so one of the original requests was this eight foot wall be constructed; that has been agreed to. My additional recommendation, which has been agreed to by both sides, is that the medians that the City owns in between that has blocked these streets off now be maintained and developed by the restaurant owner; that he will put in sufficient shrubbery there to screen the back streets of Morningside from the restaurant activity and the parking that's going around. And we don't want to get into the very specifics of what species you need to -- and we have actually done that, but I -- in the actual legislation, I don't think it should state that, but the intent must be followed, and it must be specified in a way that's measureable if we're going to come back to this and hold your -- you know -- your CU, based on compliance with that. As for the parking issue, this is not going to be an isolated incident. It's already happening, and we can't blame this one restaurant for what's going on with the parking in Morningside. People recognize that it's easier to go into Morningside and park in front of a neighbor's house than it is to find parking on Biscayne Boulevard, and that is a legal option for them; unfortunately for the neighbors. My recommendation -- and it's not going to happen here tonight, but in the future -- is for the neighbors to get together and really consider the streets -- not the avenue but the streets all east of 5th Avenue between Biscayne Boulevard and 5th Avenue, to start considering a permitting process that would only allow residential neighborhood parking in there. And that wouldn't affect the rest of Historic Morningside, so that signs would be everywhere, but just those streets City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 that are most affected would then be protected; and then, it'd have to be enforced, of course, that people going to restaurants on Biscayne couldn't come into your neighborhood and park in front of your home. And so that's my recommendation on that; beyond -- of course, everything else is just a deterrent. People still have the right to park back there, and that is a nuisance for you, and I understand and sympathize. So if I understand correctly, we're all at a meeting of the minds here. I'm open to making a motion here. Chair Gort: I'd like to give you a suggestion. You can talk to the Miami Parking System, or you can create residential parking within those streets, and then only the residents are the one that can park in certain limit time, so that can be done. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. De Leon, I -- ifI may, Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Mr. Min: I thought I heard Mr. De Leon indicate at the end of his opening that he was going to ask for a continuance if there was no agreement to all the conditions, so I don't know if -- Chair Gort: My understanding is if we can assure him that the City would take care of; that the CU would not be issue unless they comply with all the regulation they ask in here. Mr. Fernandez: And ifI may address that, Mr. Chair? Chair Gort: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Through the Chair. I think the only discrepancy here is that Mr. De Leon is asking for the CU for the entire restaurant to be the subject of a future status hearing, and our position is that that is outside of the scope of this application. The application is for a warrant and a waiver. The warrant involves outdoor seating, so what should be revocable if there is noncompliance, is the warrant for the outdoor seating. Today, the restaurant can be developed by right under the T4-O zoning regulations. So the purpose for this application is to accommodate outdoor seating. The warrant is to allow the use, and the waiver is to allow the modification to the parking field in order to allow the change to the patio area that will allow the outdoor seating. So everything before you this evening involves the use of outdoor seating; it does not involve the use of the restaurant, so we do not want to subject the restaurant use to a CU revocation unnecessarily. We are prepared to come back to you in six months with a discussion as to whether or not the outdoor seating has been conducted appropriately, and whether or not that warrant should be revoked because there hasn't been compliance. Mr. De Leon: The subject matter of the six-month review is far greater than simply compliance with regards to the outdoor seating. The six-month review that is contemplated encompasses all of the conditions that are required by the Building & Zoning Department, as well as those conditions that we have agreed to today, and that is why we're prepared to cave on what we believe is a very strong legal position with regards to your entitlement to the warrant if we can agree to these accommodations. Mr. Fernandez: Our position is that any use is subject to a certificate of use revocation at any time for noncompliance with zoning regulations or for Code Enforcement violations. That has nothing to do with this application or this hearing. If there's a violation as to the Noise Ordinance, or some other violation of the Code, the Zoning administrator can bring an action to revoke the certificate of use. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair. Chair Gort: Yes. City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. De Leon: I'm sorry. Commissioner Suarez: I think -- may I? I think what the gentleman is trying to say is that, specifically, with reference to the conditions that are agreed to, he wants to make sure that, you know, that there is some sort of -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, sir -- but maybe some sort of consequences -- Mr. De Leon: Teeth. Commissioner Suarez: -- or some sort of -- yeah, some sort of -- Mr. De Leon: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) example. Commissioner Suarez: -- a review; a review to make sure that it's working, and I think -- listen, I -- this is the first time I see you here. You're doing a very good job for yourself and for your owners, and I really do commend the Commissioner and agree with the Commissioner for commending you for working, you know, collaboratively to make the best out of the situation. So I don't think what he's asking for is all that unreasonable. Mr. Fernandez: No. I think we're saying the same thing. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: It's just the scope of -- Commissioner Suarez: And remember, this is the first time he's here. You're here a lot. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: We're here all the time. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Suarez: And this is the first time he's here, also, so he's trying to -- I understand this is probably coming at you very fast, you know, in terms of the nomenclature and, you know, what the technical terms are, and so, you know -- Mr. De Leon: And I appreciate the comments, but please also keep in mind that once the six-month period elapses, I have no more skin in this game. Commissioner Suarez: Agreed. Mr. De Leon: And so I am leaving myself completely unprotected. I've lived in this home for many, many years. When I purchased my home, I purchased next to an office zoning. Miami 21 came along and completely removed that, and now, I'm living next to a restaurant. So it is not unreasonable, I think, to seek to make sure that I have a good neighbor in this restaurant, and that they care about the fact that I need to be able to sleep in my home; that I need to be able to park in front of my home; that my 81-year-old mother can come to my house and visit me, and not have to park down the street. These are not unreasonable requests. Commissioner Suarez: And I had a -- and to the Chairman's point -- similar situation with a business that was on 32ndAvenue, a block away from Coral Way, and we had residential spillover issues, and we did the residential parking zone, and it worked phenomenally well, so that's something to definitely explore. City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Russell: IfI may, Chair? It seems we're very close here, and we've come a long way. I'd like to see if we can get there. If I can understand properly, your concerns -- well, I very well understand your concerns. The measurement by which we would in six months see if they've met the goals here, are we talking six months from now, or six months from open, when they show whether they're following their -- what they promised? Mr. Fernandez: From the opening of the restaurant. Commissioner Russell: Six months after open; is that what we're talking about? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Mr. De Leon: Well, if it's six months after opening, then the walls need to be constructed six months from today. Commissioner Russell: Agreed. But really, the measurement that you're concerned about is whether -- Mr. De Leon: I would like to ensure that we can come back before this Board and have a discussion with regards to their compliance with all of the conditions. We need to ensure that this is a good neighbor. Morningside has never had commercial intrusion of this kind on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. I am now subjected to a restaurant. That means brunch on Sundays, starting at 11, ending at god knows what time; someone sitting on their front patio, drinking and smoking till god knows what time. This is -- we must have a way to protect the neighborhood, and Miami 21 envisions that kind of balance. Commissioner Suarez: And I think what we're saying is -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that they could build a restaurant now, without any -- without asking the City for anything. What they're asking the City for is an outside seating cafe, and so your conditions are tied to their right to do that. Mr. De Leon: Absolutely. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. And so I think we're on the same page. I just want to -- Commissioner Russell: I got to make sure, because ifI understand correctly, if they don't meet the conditions, they don't just lose the outdoor seating; they lose the entire use for the restaurant; is that correct? Mr. De Leon: I'd like for Mr. Garcia to weigh in on this, because I'm assuming that this -- the CU is what we're going to be discussing in six months. Unidentified Speaker: No. Commissioner Suarez: Go ahead. Mr. Fernandez: We disagree with that. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Garcia: And so I will say briefly, to try to make it as clear as possible that there will be nothing gained from revoking a certificate of use for the indoor portion of the restaurant, because on the very next day, anyone else could come in and establish a restaurant, as of right, without any conditions, and so what would be gained from all that? I think the subject matter of City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 this hearing, which has to do with the appeal of a revocation of a warrant, is the subject of the warrant, originally, which is the open air portion of the restaurant. It is that that would potentially produce an adverse impact. It is that adverse impact that we're trying to correct for -- mitigates for these conditions, and so, ultimately, if the conditions are not met or are not complied with, six months after operation, which is the only true test of whether they've worked or they haven't worked, six months after that, then we would be in a position to be able to say, if it worked, then everyone is happy with it; if it hasn't worked, then that portion of the restaurant should subsequently be closed up and the CU amended to subtract that outdoor portion of the restaurant. Commissioner Russell: Is that correct Mr. De Leon? Mr. De Leon: That's a very different statement than what the director just said to me not five minutes ago, as I was standing next to him there. Commissioner Russell: I want to honor what your intention of the condition is so that we can communicate it properly. Mr. De Leon: My intention was predicated on what Mr. Garcia told me his enforcement rights were, and I was then told by Mr. Garcia -- was I not, standing there just a minute ago? -- that the CU would not be issued if these criteria were not met. Mr. Garcia: I stand by that. Commissioner Suarez: That's right. Commissioner Russell: But he's saying the existing use of that property would allow for a restaurant, anyway; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: That is exactly right. Commissioner Russell: So we wouldn't be stopping a restaurant; we would just be going back to square one on their particular certificate of use; is that right? Mr. Garcia: That's correct. Commissioner Russell: So you'd be -- you would -- if they are bad neighbors, in six months, you would be stopping their business, but you wouldn't be stopping the possibility that someone can put a restaurant there, as of right. Mr. De Leon: And the issue is not whether or not someone else could come and put a restaurant there; it is whether or not they're going to hold this restaurateur to task for the conditions that have been recommended and required by the department that I'm asking this Board to adopt as their own. And so I would ask that the CU be the subject of that six-month review, such that we can hold them to task and to account for all of those conditions; otherwise, I would simply ask that we continue this, and I'm going to bring an expert to demonstrate that this is not a good use for this property. Commissioner Russell: In order to achieve that, would we have to separate the warrant and the waiver? Chair Gort: Sure. Look, what they want, the conditions, even if it's not -- my understanding, that they want the same condition to be established even if they don't have the outdoor. Mr. Fernandez: That's right; that's exactly right. City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. Garcia: The legitimate -- Chair Gort: I understand but they don't understand that part. The gentleman can say, "Look, I don't want the outside, " and they can go ahead and build without any conditions. Mr. Garcia: Right, right. And so what I will simply state for your consideration is that the City's ability, the City of Miami's ability and this Commission's ability to place any restrictions or conditions on this application have to do solely with the outdoor component of the restaurant, right? That is the premise that brings us all to this particular forum, which is why I suggest common-sensically -- and then I leave it to your discretion, obviously -- that is why I suggest that it is about the outdoor operation that we should be concerned about, and it is the proper execution of the outdoor operation that should ultimately result in either the cancellation of the outdoor operation or the continuation of the outdoor operation. That is the subject of the hearing. Mr. De Leon: I think I may want to ask for my continuance -- Commissioner Russell: I figured you would. Mr. De Leon: -- because this -- the agreement and the concessions that we're prepared to make, we are prepared to make them. And if the restaurateur is not prepared to come here in good faith and offer up that we examine his CU if we are -- and if he can then at six months from now say, "Okay, you know what? You pulled my CU, and I apply for another one tomorrow and then I just open up without the outdoor," then go for it, but we sat there in good faith to make these concessions. It was my understanding from the director of the department, and I believe, confirmed by this gentleman here, that the CU was the subject of the penalty, and I feel as though I'm having the rug pulled out from under me right now. So if that is the case, I need to have an opportunity to defend myself appropriately, to procure experts and to come before this Board; alternatively, we can certainly come to an agreement, make the CU the subject of the six-month review; at that time, we address whether or not revocation is appropriate, and we deal with it then. Commissioner Russell: The concern, obviously, if you can put yourself in their shoes for a moment, because I do believe they have come to the table in good faith here today, and there may have been a misunderstanding on -- I don't believe the rug's being pulled. There is a concern on their side that if they go through the entire cost and expense of creating a restaurant and everything that's involved in that, that if they don't meet one of the criteria by whatever measureable standard we've created -- whether those bushes aren't fully opaque, and light gets through or whatever it is -- they lose their entire restaurant, and that's a huge risk to them. Chair Gort: Right. Commissioner Russell: So they're trying to find a happy medium here where if they don't meet the spirit of the criteria or the letter of the criteria of what we set forward today, they lose their ability to make noise outside, and have that deck, which is part of what they're asking for today. Obviously, the parking would still be an issue, as the valet comes around that cul-de-sac, and so I think that's kind of -- if I'm stating it correctly -- Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner, that's absolutely right. In addition to that, the property always remains subject to CU revocation; that's something that the Code provides, and the Zoning administrator can decide that there's noncompliance with -- Commissioner Russell: Right. City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. Fernandez: -- a condition and commence that process. Commissioner Russell: But I've got to respect Mr. De Leon; that this is his moment, his last chance -- Mr. Fernandez: Understood. Commissioner Russell: -- to guarantee that what he's concerned about will be honored. Once he caves right now and agrees to what we're saying, and we -- and if the restaurant falls short, he's lost his moment to actually have -- and really, this is his quality of life he's talking about. Mr. Fernandez: Understood, but in six months, my client could lose their outdoor seating and he has a wall built in front of his home at my client's expense. Commissioner Russell: I have a feeling, in good faith, he's not doing this to get a wall. Mr. Fernandez: I understand, but that's the ultimate result. Mr. De Leon: I don't want a restaurant there. Mr. Fernandez: I understand. Mr. De Leon: So -- Commissioner Russell: The fact that he is actually coming this far is tremendous to me. How can we make this measurement at six months palatable to where -- and it may be the actual conditions we're relying upon -- if the conditions are severe enough that they should lose their rest -- their entire certificate, then I'd be onboard with that. If it's simply that the bush didn't grow to a full six feet or whatever, I wouldn't be, you know -- that would be unreasonable. So is there a middle ground here? Mr. De Leon: I think reasonableness and intelligent people are the middle ground here. Clearly, we would not be revoking their CU if the bushes were five feet as opposed to seven feet. What I am talking about is if they have parties of 20 and 30 on their front patio; if they have their restaurant staff park in front of my home on a regular basis. I am talking about the quality of life, serious issues that I believe the department's criteria and the ones that we've agreed to are intended to protect the neighbors -- Commissioner Russell: Agreed. Mr. De Leon: -- against. We are not simply seeking to revoke their CU so I can get a wall. Commissioner Russell: The outdoor seating is for 12; is that correct? Mr. Fernandez: That's correct, maximum. Commissioner Russell: And so how will you enforce that as people have their friends inside, and they come out, and they start drinking late at night with their friends, and Mr. De Leon walks out and snaps a shot of 20 people out on that deck? Mr. Fernandez: It's maximum seating for 12, and that will be enforced, and if -- otherwise, it could be the subject of a Code Enforcement proceeding. Chair Gort: Yeah. City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. Fernandez: It's a condition of the warrant approval. Commissioner Russell: But that's not going to be -- a Code Enforcement proceeding is not going to be good enough for Mr. De Leon at this point. Are we far enough away that we should continue this and see if we can work this out further on the details? Because it seems the devil's in the details at this point, and -- Mr. De Leon: I think the devil is in the details, and if we are -- if we cannot -- I am prepared to agree tonight on the terms that I have laid out. And I'm speaking for my neighbors, but I believe we speak in unison. And so if we -- if this Commission would adopt those terms and enforce them through a CU review in six months after opening, I am fine; otherwise, yes, I would ask that we then have an opportunity to take a step back and perhaps work through the details with the restaurant. Commissioner Russell: Do you feel that those terms are measureable and enforceable in the sense that you could comply and not be at risk? Mr. Fernandez: I think that they're certainly measureable, and so long as they're subject to a quasi-judicial proceeding where evidence is admitted on both sides, I think that they're enforceable. Commissioner Russell: So if that's the case, and truly, your client intends to follow through with all these conditions, is there any risk of the CU if we go forward with Mr. De Leon's condition? Mr. Fernandez: Well, I just think that if there's a violation that applies to the outdoor seating component of the restaurant that the rest of the restaurant shouldn't be penalized, necessarily. You know, that if there was a problem with it, they'll lose their outdoor seating. That's a sufficient penalty. Commissioner Russell: That means -- Mr. Fernandez: Obviously, they don't want to lose that, but why should they lose their entire use that they're entitled to do by right today? Commissioner Russell: He doesn't want to have to fight you on every single violation -- Mr. Fernandez: I understand. Commissioner Russell: -- as it comes and goes, and so -- Mr. Fernandez: I understand, but I think it's a fairly draconian -- Commissioner Russell: But if you get past the -- Mr. Fernandez: -- remedy. Commissioner Russell: -- first six months, you're in the clear; am I right? Mr. De Leon: What I'm doing -- Mr. Fernandez: We're still subject to the CU revocation -- Mr. De Leon: Of -- well -- Mr. Fernandez: -- because the conditions remain as part of the warrant. So at any time after the City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 six months, Code Enforcement can come out to the property, cite them for being in violation of a condition of the warrant, and we will have a hearing again, the way we're having one now. Mr. De Leon: This Commission is the decider, and so as the decider, certainly, you can determine in six months from now whether or not any perceived violations are sufficient enough such that only the outdoor seating would be revoked, or the entire CU would be revoked. This is why I turned my rights over to what I believe to be a reasonable Board, who can make a reasonable decision, and that is why I don't understand why you are concerned with regards to the CU, because this Board is not going to revoke the CU if the conditions aren't high enough. Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. My understanding is you're going to build a wall. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chair Gort: You're committed to do that. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chair Gort: I think that's one of the main problems they have. My other suggestion is start dealing right away with the Miami Parking System to try to create the program of residential parking, and that'll take care of the parking problem that they have in there, and that'll help. At the same time, the property owner in the restaurant, he can tell people in the porch "We cannot have more than 12." He can order the individual, `Please go inside; don't be out here." Mr. Fernandez: That's right. Chair Gort: He has control of that. Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely. Chair Gort: So he can control that. Commissioner Russell: I think we're there; in which case -- Mr. Min: So just so everything is clear, the conditions would be the same conditions that were in the original warrant, as well as an eight foot wall that would be constructed by May 10, 2016; as well as a median that will be maintained by the restaurant. Commissioner Russell: The median already exists. Mr. Min: And maintained by the restaurant? Commissioner Russell: The restaurant will maintain to specifications approved by the department that are sufficient for blockage of -- Mr. Min: The restaurant -- the City Commission is to reconsider the status concerning compliance within six months after opening of the business, which I would suggest is six months after issuance of the certificate of use. Are there any other conditions to the warrant? Mr. De Leon: Yes. There were seven conditions laid out. I believe your co -counsel just provided you with his notes there, which I believe encapsulate those seven provisions. Mr. Min: Well I -- the record just needs to be clear, because I know there's been conversations, and so since we're having the hearing now -- City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. De Leon: I agree. Mr. Fernandez read -- Mr. Fernandez: I read them into the record. Mr. De Leon: -- them into the record. There were six of them that there was agreement on, and I believe we have had -- come to agreement with regards to Number 7. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Mr. De Leon: So, yes, number -- I believe the seventh one was the only one that was at issue, and that seventh required a six-month review of the compliance with all conditions; the conditions that were set out in the department's recommendations, as well as the six previous ones that we discussed here tonight and the CU would be the subject of that discussion then. Mr. Min: Okay. And I believe, Commissioner Russell, you had hinted at a Jennings disclosure. Did you want to -- Commissioner Russell: Sure. Mr. Min: -- discuss that now? Commissioner Russell: I did not -- pretty much disclose -able. Let's make it formal. This is 13. I; my staff member, Kirk Menendez; and my staff member, Eleazar Melendez, met with the appellant, 5599 LLC,- Trilussa, LLC and their land use attorney, Ben Fernandez. These appellants discussed the commercial project allowed by this warrant and steps that have been taken to address the concerns brought forward by neighbors. Additionally, I spoke with the appellant, Kevin Hinds and the appellant, Kirk De Leon, two of the neighbors closest to the project. The appellants discussed their concerns about the negative effects the project might have, and suggested various ways to address them. Additionally, my staff met with Elvis Cruz, Peter Ehrlich, property owners in the Morningside neighborhood about this project, and wider concerns dealing with commercial activity on Biscayne Boulevard. I'm disclosing this communication pursuant to the City's applicable regulations in order to give the applicant or other interested affected parties an opportunity to rebut or comment on anything of what was mentioned to me at that meeting. If the applicant wishes to move for a continuance, the item can be deferred to the next regularly scheduled meeting of this Commission to afford ample time to the applicant refuting information. These communications have not swayed me in any fashion. I continue to be as impartial about this item as I was prior to the communications. My disclosure will be made part of the record. Thank you. Mr. Min: And Commissioner, since I'm hearing and no one's asked for a continuance based on that Jennings disclosure, ifI can try to assist you, I believe your proposed motion would be a motion to grant the appeal -- Commissioner Russell: I believe it's to deny the appeal. Mr. Min: -- grant the warrant. It would be granting Mr. -- Commissioner Russell: Yes -- Mr. Min: -- Fernandez' appeal. Commissioner Russell: Granting their appeal, denying the -- Mr. Min: Granting the warrant -- City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: Subject to the conditions. Commissioner Russell: Correct. Mr. Min: -- the waivers, as well as the conditions that have been specified on the record. Commissioner Russell: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Second. Chair Gort: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Suarez: Congratulations. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. Chair Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Russell: Mr. De Leon, thank you for your trust in the Commission. Mr. De Leon: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. PZ.14 RESOLUTION 15-01483ww A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A REDUCTION OF THE WATERFRONT SETBACK AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 3(MM)(III) OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR THE GROVE BAY RESIDENCES PROJECT LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3581 EAST GLENCOE STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 15-01483ww Fact Sheet.pdf 15-01483ww Analysis & Maps.pdf 15-01483ww Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-01483ww Legislation (v1).pdf 15-01483ww Exhibit.pdf 15-01483ww-Submittal-Michelle Black -Beacon Harbour Condo Assoc. Opposition.pdf LOCATION: 3581 E. Glencoe Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier E. Fernandez, Esq. on behalf of Grove Bay Properties, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PURPOSE: This will allow the reduction of the Waterfront Setback and the required Side Setback within the Grove Bay Residences project. City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 1,22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon R-1 5-0551 Chair Gort: PZ 14. Commissioner Suarez: This the last one? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir, thank you. Item PZ.14 is before you as a resolution. This is an application for a waterfront waiver for a property at 3581 East Glencoe Street. It is composed of two facets. One is a reduction of the required waterfront setback from 50 feet to 25 feet; and the second is a reduction of the 25 percent side setback requirement from 20.92 feet to 15 feet. I will introduce the item briefly by mentioning that this particular property is configured in such a way so as not to fully fit the parameters of the Zoning Ordinance, and so in that regard, it merits special consideration. The rights -of -way, as you might see in the illustrations attached, is far removed from the property, and does not have direct visual access through the property to the waterfront. That said, the design actually does go a long way towards achieving the intent of the ordinance; for that reason, we are recommending approval. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir. Javier Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Javier Fernandez with Stearns, Weaver, Miller; law office at 150 West Flagler; here on behalf of the applicant, Grove Bay Properties. Since I have the unenviable task of being the last person between yourselves and your families, I was -- I would suggest -- I know there are a few members of the public that would like to speak on the item, both in -- one in opposition, I believe, and two "for," so with that, we'll reserve our comments and any questions until maybe you've taken public testimony, if you're amenable to proceed in that way, sir. Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. Those in the public. Commissioner Russell: Shall I give my Jennings disclosure now? Chair Gort: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Commissioner Russell: Okay. I; my staff member, Kirk Menendez; and my staff member Eleazar Melendez met with the applicant, Grove Bay Properties, LLC (Limited Liability Company), and their land use attorney, Javier Fernandez, to discuss the project plan for 3581 East Glencoe Street. Additionally, I spoke with Attorney Richard Oberman, a legal expert in public policy and land use, with no interest in this project about the legal tradition affording the public access to the waterfront. I'm disclosing this communication pursuant to the City's applicable regulations in order to give the applicant or other interested affected parties an opportunity to rebut or comment on anything of what was mentioned to me at that meeting. If the applicant wishes to move for a continuance, the items can be deferred to the next regularly scheduled meeting of this Commission to afford ample time for the applicant to refute any information. This communication has not swayed me in any fashion, and I continue to be as impartial about this item as I was prior to the communication. My disclosure will be made part of the record. Thank you. City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Michelle Black: Yes. Honorable Commissioners, good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Michelle Black. I reside in 1660 South Bayshore Court. I have been asked by the board to speak on behalf of them since all three members of the board are traveling. This development, the board of director of Beacon Harbor has asked me to oppose the Grove Bay application before you today. We have not been able to reach an agreement with the developer, and as affected neighbors, cannot agree to request the diminished waterfront setbacks. I have sent you copies of the photographs. Public access: The Beacon Harbor Condominium opposes the construction of another access alleyway. The developer application is incorrect in stating that they will provide sole point of public access to the waterfront within the Glencoe Subdivision. This is not true. There is already public access to the bay between 1632 and 1638 South Bayshore Court, which is in deplorable state, full of garbage and leftover beer cans. We are against the developer building yet another even longer narrow alleyway to the waterfront that may end up in the same state as the existing one, or lead to increased traffic and noise from the visitors to our quiet residential neighborhood. Please see the pictures. The special appearance application is based on the incorrect assumption by the developer and the City that area is not public access to the waterway. Beacon Harbor opposes the construction, staging, delivery of building materials, and all other construction -related access to Glencoe, which will hugely impact the residents of Glencoe Subdivision; the nuisance, quality of life disruptions, the homeowners diminished capability to sell, rent their units during the pendency of the work, dust, debris, damages to paint on building facades, to name a few. Construction access should be restricted to Halissee Street, also known as Mercy Road, which is nonresidential street, and backs up to the entire proposed development. The Glencoe neighborhood constituents do not accept staging and vehicular access through the residential neighborhood when -- unless the obstructive alternative exists [sicJ. We're not opposed to the construction of this project and -- but we're extremely opposed to the damaging impact it will have on our community and for the next two years. We argue the -- we urge the Commission to defer this item in order to continue working with the developer on our few issues, and to come to a mutually agreeable solution; or otherwise, to vote against it. I thank you for your time. Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Commissioner Russell: May I ask a question? Chair Gort: Anyone else? Commissioner Russell: I'm sorry. Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Russell: I had a question for the neighbor. Chair Gort: The Commissioner have a question for you. Commissioner Russell: Hello. Ms. Black: Hi. Commissioner Russell: The pictures you showed of the existing easement that goes down to the water, this isn't owned or managed by the applicant; is that correct? Ms. Black: No, no. That already exist. Commissioner Russell: Who should be maintaining this; whose is this? City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Ms. Black: Uh -- Chair Gort: Wait a minute, you'll get an opportunity. Commissioner Russell: Okay, then if you -- if that's not within your wheelhouse to answer, that's fine. Ms. Black: That's already there. Commissioner Russell: I just wanted to -- it doesn't belong to the applicant, though, correct, Ms. Black? Commissioner Russell: And it doesn't connect to the applicant's property; is that correct? Ms. Black: No. They're asking to make a bigger alleyway that already exist, and it's not being taken care of So if a bigger alleyway is construct, then it would be more impact to the residents as what it is already. Commissioner Russell: So the residents are actually concerned with too much access to the waterfront? Ms. Black: And the construction, that it will implement into our neighborhood; all the traffic that it will -- it's only -- it's a cul-de-sac, kind of circular -- Commissioner Russell: Right. Ms. Black: -- Glencoe. Commissioner Russell: IfI understand the application correctly, under our Code, when they build a waterfront property of this type, they must put a 50-foot setback to the water to allow for public access, so that we can all enjoy the water, and that was the intention of the legislation. They're actually requesting to reduce the amount of that waterfront access; not necessarily the access, but the setback, itself still allowing for people to enjoy the waterfront in front of their building, which they would probably prefer to have private, I would imagine, but under our Code, they have to allow access for the public. What you're asking, ifI understand correctly, is to eliminate their access to the waterfront, or eliminate what they're applying for, which is a reduction of the setback? Ms. Black: Well, it was my understanding that they wanted to make it bigger; and also, the construction to go through Glencoe. We're asking also to have the construction vehicles through Mercy Road. Commissioner Russell: Okay. Ms. Black: And to maintain -- I mean to maintain whatever -- there is -- that already exists there, so it's not that -- nobody is taking care of. Commissioner Russell: I think I understand your concerns, and I'm optimistic. We may get another one done tonight. All right, let's go. Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Yes, sir. Ms. Black: Done? City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Commissioner Russell: Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Eric Levy: Good evening. My name is Eric Levy. I'm the president of Bay Colony Condo Association. First of all, the opponent is incorrect. That alleyway that she's referring to, a portion of it is, we learned this year through Zoning, is actually -- a piece of it is owned by a private individual, so it's not actually a public alleyway. Commissioner Russell: But it's not that -- it's not the appellant -- I mean it's not the applicant. Mr. Levy: Right. The one that she's referring to, and it's not for this property. Second of all -- Chair Gort: Speak into the mike, please, sir. Mr. Levy: Sorry. Bay Colony has actually helped Pelican Reef next door to maintain that alleyway for the last five years, okay? So we've all done our best in the neighborhood to keep it clean, and for the most part, it is clean. This is the first time in six months there has been opposition here, and it's very simple. Zoning has done a remarkable job of transforming the neighborhood. It has a nice mix now, as you know, between Mr. Garcia's new development; Beacon Harbor, when it was built, and what's coming, okay? The reason there's been no opposition is because Bay Colony is like a tired old car. It's been there for 58 years, okay? It is a land lease, so it's depreciating every single year. We have done our best to try to upgrade the property, but our fancy new neighbors turn their noses to us, week in, week out. I have had more conversations with Code Enforcement for the last six years as president, simply because we cannot, you know maintain these -- the quality that our neighbors are demanding now, okay? It's a wonderful position to be in, let me tell you. So this is -- as a result of our land lease, we cannot sell our properties. I've tried twice. You mention the word, "land lease," you can't sell. 18 residents are in this situation. This is a fair compromise for all of us, and the fact that there has been no opposition here should tell you something -- up until now, okay? Commissioner Russell: I'm sorry, I haven't heard a -- do we have a compromise on the table? We haven't heard anything about that. Mr. Levy: I'm sorry, amongst the residents of Bay Colony, but I (INAUDIBLE). The eyesore that most of the neighbors consider Bay Colony to be will be, you know, replaced by something of much higher quality that they desire, okay? And the residents of Bay Colony finally have an out, because it -- a depreciating asset is very, very difficult to sell. And if you look at the record of sales at Bay Colony, there hasn't been one at market value in 10 years. Thank you. Chair Gort: Thank you, sir. Mr. Fernandez, you ready to make your presentation now? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, sir, happy to, and I'd like to start by addressing the access issue that currently exists, and possibly shedding some light on that ifI can just get to my slide here very quickly; was hoping that it can be brought up onto the monitor so you can see it on your screens. Can you see it on your monitors, gentlemen? Vice Chair Hardemon: No. Mr. Fernandez: No? Is IT (Information Technology) able to put it on the monitors? Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE). City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. Fernandez: I do. Chair Gort: IT, you're off today. Commissioner Carollo: No, they're coming, they're running. Chair Gort: There he goes. Mr. Fernandez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I don't -- Chair Gort: No, no, go ahead. Mr. Fernandez: Now you go to "control, end" Yeah. Okay, thank you. Okay, sorry about that. So, gentlemen, this is actually a copy of the subdivision map for this area. You'll see that with respect to the existing access -- I'll just blow it up for you -- between Lots 8 and 9 on the subdivision, there's actually a portion that was dedicated, a reserve, for the benefit of the Glencoe owners, so everyone who is an owner of a lot in the subdivision has a beneficial title interest in that lot. So what has happened over the years, I think, Commissioners, that since everyone owns it in common, and there is no common neighborhood association, no one has had the responsibility of maintaining it. So in conversation with the neighbors and with staff, we've actually, I think, suggested two additional conditions to our order where my clients would assume responsibility for not only maintaining in perpetuity, but improving it so it actually would become a beneficial access point to the neighborhood, and I'm assuming the Planning director will address those two conditions at the end of our presentation. That addresses point one. Ms. Black, who I have not had the pleasure of meeting and interacting with over the last couple of days, we have spent in our efforts to get this project approved -- this is now our fourth public hearing that we've had. At all phases, we've been approved unanimously by the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) for the prior zoning changes, and we hope to have your support on the same terms this evening. In addition to the improvements that we are making to the waterfront, we are providing the public access, which is required by Charter. We understand the neighborhood's concern, and we're trying to address the current issue by, again, proffering those two conditions to improve and maintain the existing public access. It's up to this body, if they'd like us to expand the access on our property. If you're so inclined, we will not stand in the way of the neighborhood of removing that obligation on our property, but certainly, you'll understand that that is the policy thrust of the Code and Charter, and we've done our best in our application to honor that. I'd just like to say with respect to the other ancillary issues, we have -- we are in the second step of what is our entitlement process currently. As I mentioned before, we've completed successfully the comp plan change and the rezoning. Hopefully, we will conclude this evening this portion, which basically sets just the final envelope of our building, the final setback that at this moment remains undecided. After this, we do have to go back through a waiver process on two items, which is, in effect, a site plan approval and our desire has been to work with the neighbors to address the construction staging issues. I, myself, spent many years working here at the City, and understand very acutely the issues on Glencoe, and the conflicts that were created actually, ironically, by the construction of Beacon Harbor when it was built, in terms of construction access and workers that were introduced into the neighborhood during that construction phase. So we'd like to find an access point via Mercy. That will require my client to negotiate for those rights; we do not have them yet. And, unfortunately, we cannot make a binding commitment, because to do so, Commissioner, would basically inhibit our ability to build the project at all, but we do want to work in a diligent fashion to try to find an additional way to avoid the potential construction impacts to the surrounding community. I'll also note that we have endeavored in our conversations with all our neighbors to advance proposals that inure to the benefit of the entire neighborhood. Unfortunately, our conversation to date broke down around an issue that, in our estimation, the request that was made inured only to the benefit of Beacon Harbor. So to illustrate two other items that were under discussion, we've talked about signage for the subdivision; it related to City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 landscaping. We talked about dealing with traffic issues in terms of conducting a warrant analysis that might allow us to install a traffic signal that would benefit egress from the entire subdivision. Those are things that were on the table. Unfortunately, because some of the requests of that agreement fell through. We'd like to continue to work with the neighborhood going forward to address those issues. They not only benefit the neighborhood; they benefit our client directly, and so we have every motivation to actually take those conversations to an ultimate conclusion. This evening, however, we would request your support for this modification. The modification I'd like to highlight very briefly, as well, is born of a concession we made during the zoning process, which I've discussed and for purposes of full disclosure, not only with Commissioner Russell, but also with Commissioner Gort and Commissioner Suarez by telephone. If you would give me one second, I will pull up the site plan and you can see that very briefly, and that'll be the end of my presentation. I'll just highlight one other area. Our side setback abutting the single-family home that was approved as part of the zoning via a covenant that we agreed to tender during that process expanded our side setback from the minimum five that were required, the five feet that were required to 20. And so part of today's request with the waterfront setback is not to reclaim the 20 -- full 25 feet, but, in fact, strike a balance here on a very narrow lot so we can have a building envelope that works by reclaiming a portion of the gesture we extended to the single-family portion of the neighborhood by not only relocating the density towards the water, but also now trying to arrive at an envelope that allows us to recapture a portion of those additional 15 feet that we conceded for the benefit of our single-family neighbor -- single-family home neighbor. So on the waterfront, the deviation, in fact, will net us a benefit at certain points, because it's not exactly linear throughout, of between five and 10 feet. That is really the net benefit of today's request before both of you. In all other respects, in terms of the security zone, the pedestrian space, the pedestrian walkway, in terms of the passive zones, we meet all or exceed the minimum requirements in your waterfront design guidelines. It's merely in the private portion of that setback, what they call the transition security zone, where we're asking for this relief. So with that, if you have any questions regarding the request, we're happy to address them at this time. Chair Gort: Thank you. Okay, we'll close the public hearings. Commissioner Russell: I do have a question, ifI may. Chair Gort: Sure. Commissioner Russell: I believe I understand the project, and for my own part, I'm -- I appreciate that you're moving the density away from the single-family homes. I don't think it equates to a give and take on the waterfront that you've reduced it there, so you get it there, but on the same token, I'm okay with -- you know, this doesn't seem to violate the spirit, in my mind, of the bayfront walking that's meant by the Code, because you're still leaving the full 25 feet there. There's no blockage of view, because this is a dead-end "L" where Mercy -- Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. Commissioner Russell: -- but I'm always inclined to listen to the neighbors first. Mr. Fernandez: Okay. Commissioner Russell: And I just am not sure I fully understand what the neighbors have asked of you and where there has not been a meeting of the minds. This is Bay Colony; is that correct? Mr. Fernandez: If I can show you -- if you'd like I can pull up the image. It's actually Beacon Harbor which -- Commissioner Russell: Beacon Harbor, that's what I meant. Beacon Harbor. City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Mr. Fernandez: -- at the other end of the cul-de-sac, that's correct. Commissioner Russell: Could you show us on that other -- Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Commissioner Russell: -- where Beacon Harbor is? Mr. Fernandez: Not a problem. Commissioner Russell: And ifI understood correctly, they're asking you to maintain the existing path that goes to the water from the street a couple of lots down, right? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. We proffered to do that when we were -- became aware of the condition in speaking with Mr. Black, who is the association president. Ms. Black: Right. The president of the association, he's traveling at this moment. Chair Gort: Excuse me. Mr. Fernandez: IfI may very quickly just highlight here for you, you'll see that the building in the circle that -- at the -- I guess the left edge of that circle is the subject condominium that is objecting today, so they're located at the opposite end of the cul-de-sac. In terms of the construction impacts, frankly, they'll probably be the least impacted by the work that would be ongoing on the site; notwithstanding that, we want to avoid introducing that traffic onto Glencoe. It's been something we have, frankly, proffered from the inception; not because -- it's the right thing to do, but moreover, it also makes our life a lot easier, so our desire has been to have conversation about figuring out an alternate access point. Unfortunately, during the course of today's conversation -- which I'd just not like to get into this on the record -- there was a request that was made that did not inure to the benefit of the entire neighborhood. It was very specifically benefiting this condominium association. So with respect to traffic and traffic signals; with respect to improvements to public access to the waterways; with respect to communal landscaping that would enhance the subdivision generally, we have been amenable to all of those conversations, and will be -- and will continue to be amenable to all those conversations. Ms. Black: May I? Commissioner Russell: I'm inclined to understand better what the neighbors are looking for, I guess. Ms. Black: We just want our residents in Beacon Harbor -- I mean, we are not against the construction of your condominium. Mr. Fernandez: We understand that. Ms. Black: We just want to make sure that the construction will not affect our neighborhood, that's one; that the alleyway will be maintained by whoever, you know, if you're going to be concerned, which is fine. It's just we're just asking a little bit more time so we can come to a meeting of the mind between everybody in the neighborhood, because this will impact and it will have an important impact on the street, on -- like you say, the traffic will be immensely; the construction; the street will be deteriorating, and we just want a little bit more time so we can, you know, discuss with the developer what is -- City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Chair Gort: Excuse me, wait a minute. Yes, sir. Commissioner Russell: That's for the project in general; the impact of the project in general; not of this specific request of the setback. Ms. Black: Correct. Commissioner Russell: Correct. Ms. Black: We point out in the paper that I gave you. Chair Gort: Maintain -- they clean also the alley? Commissioner Russell: Right. Chair Gort: The access; that's -- Commissioner Russell: Right. Chair Gort: -- one of the things they want, somebody to take care of it. Commissioner Russell: Right, but they're -- what they're -- if they -- Mr. Fernandez: If I can come back -- if I can -- I think I can concede to illuminate the record and not be so opaque. Unfortunately, what happened at the end of this morning's conversation -- and Ms. Black was not a party to it, so I don't mean to say this to impugn you at all. Ms. Black: No, I understand. Mr. Fernandez: There was a significant financial request made by the condominium association, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars -- Ms. Black: Well, I'm not aware of this. Mr. Fernandez: -- for the benefit of the association, exclusively, and, unfortunately, that's not a commitment we would ever entertain, and our concern is that a delay would only further -- would only be further used as leverage to basically extract a monetary concession from my client. Ms. Black: I think the concern that also our residents have is the -- with the construction -- painting that will be involved all the dirt, the dust that will implement in the street, and all those things, that if we can later on talk and get to a meeting of the mind I'm sure the board will, you know, will come to an agreement with the developer. Commissioner Suarez: May I? Chair Gort: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: I also want to be respectful of your perspective, but what we're seeing happening, also, sometimes is that a resident will come with very valid concerns, but they're not specifically related to what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is setbacks, which are separate and apart from -- they could build whatever they want to build under the current rules, and so it's sort of what happened in the last hearing, the one that was here before. Ms. Black: Yes. City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: So I think the best bet in terms of keeping your leverage is to try to come to some sort of an agreement, just like the last group did, so that you can have the assurances like cleaning that -- that alley looks horrible, I mean. Ms. Black: Exactly. Commissioner Suarez: And I think, obviously, a new owner would be -- it would be in their best interest, obviously, to have that be maintained for purposes of the value of their property, et cetera. So I'm just urging you -- because sometimes, in your effort to want to create some leverage in terms of other issues, you end up losing the actual leverage that you have, because then they say, "Well, you know what? We're just going to go forward with it as is, " and then that's it, you know, and I don't want you -- I don't want that to happen, either. I think this is a good opportunity for you to express your concerns, and that they can be addressed, so, you know, all parties can move forward. Ms. Black: Thank you. I appreciate that. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Chair Gort: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Sir, if you'd indulge, my client would actually like to address the Board, if that's appropriate at this time. Chair Gort: What was that again? Mr. Fernandez: If you'd indulge us, my client would like to address the Commission at this time. Oscar Rodriguez: Thank you very much. Oscar Rodriguez. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Chair Gort: Address. Mr. Rodriguez: 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3600. I can't sit back anymore, and just sit and not say what I'm about to say. We have worked with the community for about a year and a half with respect to this project. We have committed to not only maintaining an alley that is not ours, but also proffering another alley to give access to the residents of the City of Miami. Today, at 12 o'clock, I received a phone call, saying that if we gave $300, 000, they would support our project. I cannot do that. I have been a private sector citizen, and I have done many developments in the City, as many of you know, and I cannot just sit idly by when associations pretty much extort developers when we're trying to do the sensible and right thing. We have the support of the community. We have the support of the residents that live there now because they are in a dire situation, and what we're trying to do is be responsible and sustainable developers. We will continue to work with the association, as we have from the beginning, even though what they did today, to me, is appallable [sic]. We will continue to work with them, but I ask for your support today. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: And let me just say that in fairness to -- Ms. Black: Can I say that I wasn't aware of that -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Black: -- conversation? City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: No, she was not. Commissioner Suarez: And, you know, everybody acknowledges that, so I think that's important. Ms. Black: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: --because, you know -- Ms. Black: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- you're here as a citizen -- Ms. Black: This is the first time I hear about any asking for money for the association, so -- Commissioner Suarez: -- and so I think your second concern, ifI'm not mistaken, is the construction, even though it doesn't relate to the setbacks that we're talking about. Is there anything that can be proffered to sort of --? Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner, I think one of the conditions -- and I forget the condition number -- actually requires that we tender a construction and maintenance plan to the Planning Department, to its satisfaction, so that is already addressed in the conditions; moreover, we will continue those conversations. We do not want to be in conflict with our neighbors; that's not our goal. Commissioner Suarez: But it's important for her to know -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- because that does go to your quality of life, and I think, you know, quality of life is not just once the building is built, but it's during the phase of construction. Ms. Black: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So I think those are important issues. Ms. Black: Exactly. Also, the main thing was the application was incorrect; that's the point that we wanted to bring to the Commission. Mr. Fernandez: And you are correct, it's partially incorrect, because, frankly, the public access that's granted through the subdivision plan is only for the benefit of the subdivision residents; ours will be for the general public, so ours is slightly broader in terms of the grant, as well. Ms. Black: So that's why we wanted -- Mr. Fernandez: So it's a fair point. Ms. Black: Yeah. Commissioner Russell: The next step would be to move with these conditions. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Can I just clam? This is not a development permit. City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 Commissioner Carollo: Second. Mr. Min: So there are no conditions as part of the waiver, pursuant to the City Charter. So if there are proffers that are being made by the developer, if they can be placed on the record, and if the Commission wants to grant the waiver based on those proffers, that is how -- the proper way of proceeding. Mr. Fernandez: Happy to proceed that way. We had suggested two proffers to staff, and I'll read -- and you may have the more precise language, Mr. Director, but I'll go ahead and take a shot at it. Applicant shall clear, clean, improve the area located between Lots 8 and 9, between South Bayshore and Biscayne Bay, and Block 5 of the Glencoe Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 119 of the public records. Applicant's improvements to such area shall include a decorative fence, landscaping, and such other enhancements typical of a pocket park, consistent with the improvements to Steel Mini Park. The proposed dedicated area improvements shall be presented to the Beacon Harbor Condominium Association for their review and comment, and shall be approved by the director of the Department of Planning & Zoning prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Grove Bay Residences Project. That was the first proffer. The second proffer is that the applicant and successors in interest shall be required to maintain the subject area where these future improvements, park improvements will be located, for the benefit of all the residents of Glencoe. Commissioner Suarez: What about the construction management plan? Was that --? Mr. Fernandez: That's already -- well, it was addressed in staffs report. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, thank you. Ms. Black: So no construction will be going through Beacon -- Glencoe Street? Mr. Fernandez: We're not in a position where we can commit to that right now. We will continue to work with you, and hopefully, gain access so we can avoid access at that location. Ms. Black: Well, that's really one of the main things. Mr. Fernandez: We are of like mind in that request. Ms. Black: It's a small street, small residents, and -- you know. Commissioner Suarez: Understood. Ms. Black: Okay. Chair Gort: Okeydoke. Thank you. Commissioner Russell: So we move with these conditions; is that the right --? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Second. Mr. Min: If the Commission finds that those proffers and the other reasons stated on the record justifies waiving the waterfront setbacks, as requested by the developer, then the motion would be to approve the resolution. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Commissioner Suarez: Second. City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 1/22/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes December 10, 2015 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Russell: Move to approve. Chair Gort: Moved by Commissioner Russell; second by Commissioner Carollo. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. Chair Gort: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you very much. Ms. Black: Thank you. Commissioner Russell: And I'd welcome meeting the neighbors in my office if they have concerns, because there will be plenty of opportunities moving forward. Chair Gort: I'm going to have a motion to adjourn, but before we have the motion to adjourn, Commissioner Russell, I want you to know, you -- as your first day, it seems like you been there for years; great job. Thank you. Commissioner Russell: It felt like years today. Chair Gort: Congratulations. You've done a hell of a good job. Applause. END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 1/22/2016