HomeMy WebLinkAboutZB Reso & TranscriptMiami Zoning Board
Resolution No.: 2004-0928
Monday, October 4, 2004
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina offered the following resolution and moved its adoption
Resolution:
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL BY ANDREW DICKMAN, ESQUIRE ON BEHALF OF
THE MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, INC. AND ROD ALONSO, RON STEBBINS,
SCOTT CRAWFORD AND ELVIS CRUZ OF THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
NO. 03-0309, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR ON JULY 21,
2004, FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
5101 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A" (HEREBY
ATTACHED), PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ZONED 0 OFFICE
WITH AN SD-9 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Miguel Gabela,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. Charles J. Flowers Away
Mr. Miguel Gabela Yes
Mr. Joseph H. Ganguzza Yes
Mr. Charles A. Garavaglia Yes
Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Yes
Mr. Carlos Martell Away
Mr. Juvenal A. Pina Yes
Mr. Allan Shulman Yes
Mr. Angel Urquiola Yes
Mr. Georges William Yes
AYE: 8
NAY: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENT: 2
Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 8-0
r
Teresita L. Fernandez,Executive Seca ary
Hearing Boards
Case No. 2004-0872
Item Nbr:
5
Exhibit "A"
5101 Biscayne Boulevard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot t Block 5 of
recorded in Plat Book
AND
Lot 17 Block 5 of
recorded in Plot Book
'BAY SHORE PLAZA UNIT No. 3' according ID the Plot thereof os
41 at Poge 73 of the Public Records of Miomi—.Dade County, Florida.
'BAY SHORE PI.A2A UNIT No. 4' according to the Plot thereof os
42 at Poge 2 of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida.
Attached please find the
October 4, 2004 Zoning Board
transcript for the
5101 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
Class II Appeal.
MIAMI ZONING BOARD HEARING
Monday, October 4, 2005
6:00 p.m.
City 'Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami,' Florida
Reported• By:-
Kathy Schwab, Court.Reporter
Notary Public,.State of,•Florida'
Esquire Deposition Services, LLC
N. Miami Office Job #.
Phone.- 800-224-1268
305-651-0706
ESQUIRE .DEPOSITION•SERVICES'
(305) 651-0706
el
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371=2713
7
1 APPEARANCES:
Chairwoman: Ileana Hernandez
3 Zoning Board Members:
Miguel Gabela
4 Joseph Ganguzza, Esq.
Charles Garavaglia
5 Juvenal Pina
Allen Shulman
6 Angel Urquiola
Georges William
7
9
10
11
12
13
.14
15
16
.17.
18
19
20
.21
22
23.
24
.25
Lucia Dougherty - Attorney for the Applicants
Bernard Zyscovich - Attorneys for the Project
Andrew Dickman - Attorney for Rod Alonso, Elvis
Cruz & Morningside Assoc.
Lourdes Slayzak - Asst. Director, Planning &
Zoning
George Wysong - Zoning Board Attorney
Mr. Fernandez - City Attorney
Lionel Toledo - Zoning Administrator
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
3
,Thereupon:
2 The following proceedings were had:
3 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Item Number
4 5, please.
5 THE CLERK: Item Number 5.
6 Approximately 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. This
7 is an appeal by Andrew Dickman, Esquire on
8 behalf of the.Morningside Civic Association,
9 Inc. and Rod Alonso, Ron Stebbins, Scott
10 Crawford and Elvis Cruz of the Class II
11. Special Permit Application No. 03-03.09,
12 • approved with conditions by the Planning
13 Director on July 21, 2004 for new
1.4. construction.
15 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you..
16 MR. DICKMAN Good evening, Ma'am
17 . Chair-, members of ,the Board. •Andrew Dickman
18 with law offices at 9111 Park Drive ih Miami
19 Shores, Florida.
20 For the record, I'd•also like.youto
21 note that.I have a Masters degree.in urban
22 and regional planning and I have held an
23 American Instituteof Certified Planning
24 recognition for almost -- going on 15 years,
25 as well as a practicing: attorney.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
4
1 I represent the Morningside Civic'
2 Association. They have numerous residents
3 who live in and adjacent to the proposed
4 development. Quite succinctly, our position
5 is that this development violates the. Miami
6 Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan, which, in
7 several places -- and I will put these into•
8 the record -- in several areas, the land
9 use --
10 MS. DOUGHERTY: Madam Chair; could I
11 interrupt for a second?
12 I would -like to proffer a Motion To
13. Dismiss on three` out of the four grounds
14 that have been alleged by Mr. Dickman, and 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that this is one .of them. And I think
it would be appropriate for me to at least
make'that motion prior to any testimony
given on the comprehensive plan.
.CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: I will defer
to our attorney.
MR. WYSONG:. Thank you.
I think that's appropriate. There's an
appeal and she's moving to dismiss the .
appeal, so it would be in order to hear the
Motion To Dismiss first. And then if those
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
2
4
5
motions are denied or reserved, then
Mr. Dickman can go into detail.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
Lucia.
MS. DOUGHERTY: Lucia Dougherty with
6 . offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here
7 on behalf of the owner and applicant.. With
8 me here today is Jerry Cohen and Larry
9 Eisenberg, who are the applicants..
10 There are four grounds. that have been
11 . alleged. And if you pull out Mr. Dickman's
12 appeal, he has -- the first ground is that
13 it violates the Comprehensive Plan: Second
14 ground is that it violates 907.3.2. Third
15 ground is that it violates the standards of
16 1305. And the fourth ground is that they
17 violate due process in .that they didn't
18 apply SD-9.
19 On the• first ground, it violates the
20 Comp.: Plan., this is not something even the
21 Planning Department can consider when..
22. issuing a Class 11 plan.. In other words,
.23 the Comp. Plan and the zoning ordinance must
24 be consistent.
25 Buts we have not asked for a change in
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
6
1 the Comp. Plan. And this would be the same
2 thing as somebody trying to attack the Comp.
3 Plan when you issue a building permit. It
4 just cannot be done. It's not something
5
6
7
that the Planning Department can look. at
when they are issuing its Class II's because
they. have standards, and those are 1305.
And therefore, it's not something that this
Board can consider, as well.
10 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Hold on a
11 Irtiriute,
12 Lourdes, would you comment on that? Go
13 item by item.
14 MS. SLAYZAK: Lucia's correct. This
15 application did not 'seek an amendment to the
16 Comp: Plan. It is a special permit..
17 The criteria that we use for special
18
19.
20
21
22
23
24
25
permit review is.not thecriteria for the
Comp. Plan amendment and.they weren't
seeking a zoning . chan'ge or Comp,. Plan.
amendment.. It's different criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay. Lucia,
proceed, please.
MS. DOUGHERTY:- The
second standard
is, they say that we violated 907.3.2. And
it
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
1
3
the last one is that they also say that we
have not applied the correct zoning
district -- or the correct standards of the
SD-9.
5 Again, I have the same motion in
6 connection with those two. These aren't
7 things .that you can consider because they
8 aren't things that the Planning Department
9 can consider when they make their
10. recommendation. In fact, those issues were
11 determined by the Zoning Administrator in
12 November of 2003, when, you'll see ;- right
13 after Mr. Dickman's appeal, you'll see the
14 Class II permit zoning referral, and it's
15 signed by. the Zoning Administrator 11-20-03,
16 that decision, where it says that the Zoning
17 Division of the Zoning and Planning
18 Department found this to'be 'in compiance
19 • with all applicable zoning requirements and
20 • •requires a. Class TT.
21 So that the Zoning Admin:i:strator
22 determined 907 was applicable. It
23
24
25
determined
applicable
decision.
what .law regarding SD-9 was
and no-one
appealed that
Notwithstanding the fact that all
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
.abutting notices -- all abutting residences
were given notice of our appeal --'I mean,
our Class II permit application.
So, therefore, based on two grounds.
One is that it's untimely because they
didn't appeal that decision when they made
7 those decisions. And secondly, it's not
8 something that's part of the standards for
9 the Class II permit. You can't make
10 those -- those standards aren't in your
11 Class II permit application standards, of
12' which I will pass out a copy when we get to
13 our hearing.
14 Rased on that, I'd like the Board to
15 consider dismissing the first ground,the
16 second ground,..notthe third one, because
1.7 that's the standards. That's the 1305, but
18 the fourth ground, as well.
19 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ:. Thank you;
20
21
22
23
24
25
• Lourdes.
Would you please comment on that?
MS. SLAYZAK: _We have zoning here
that can comments on the zoning issues. Rut
what I do want to, I guess, tell the Board
is that when.you're reviewing a Class II
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
9
1 Special Permit; you're reviewing it in an
2 appellate way. You're here on appeal, and
3 what you can do is approve the appeal, deny
4
7
the appeal, or approve with modification.
That's within the jurisdiction of this Board
to do.
But you must use the same standards
that'were used in the original Class II
9 Special Permit. You can't broaden the
10 standards of the criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: In other
12 words, Lourdes, 907.3.2 what it was when
13 this came through and not what it became or
14 is becoming or will become.
15 MS. SLAYZAK: Correct.
16 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you._
17 MR..DICKMAN: Madam Chair,_T would
18 like an •opportunity --
19 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Let me finish.
20 with Lourdes.
21 Is Zoning coming up?
22 . MS. SLAYZAK: We have Zoning here,
23 if you have any questions with the.
24 applicability.
25 This application was filed prior to the
11
•
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-27.13
10
1 amendment of SD-9, so it was not renewed
2 under the new SD-9. The new SD-9 was
3 adopted very recently. This application,
4 because it was filed prior to that amendment
5 being passed by the City Commission, was
6 allowed to continue to be reviewed under the
7 applicable SD-9 at the time it was filed.
'8 And we have Zoning here that can
9 comment on 907.
10. CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: 'Please.
11 .MALE VOICE: Excuse me. Could you
12 give me some information on number three?
13 MS. SLAYZAK: Which one was number
14 three? Oh, the 1305, that one?
15 MALE VOICE: 1305, yes.
16 MS. SLAYZAK: 1305 is the criteria-
17 and it is the standards that should be used
18 for Class. II. And that's when .the appellant.
19 will. go; into his reasons.why he believes it
20 doesn't meet 1305. But that one --
21 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Lucia is
22 proposing to dismiss the first. one, second
23 one and fourth one, not the third so we
24 don'.t have to' consider the third one.
.25 MS. SLAYZAK: The third one is the
Esquire Deposition Services (305.) 371-2713 •
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
proper criteria.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
MR. TOLEDO: Lionel Toledo
(phonetic), Zoning Administrator.
When the application came through, it
was checked for all standards and everything
was fine.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Everything,
it -was recommended for.approval under the
standards that were current at the time?
MR. TOLEDO: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Not the ones
13 that were or will become or in the process
14 of..
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR. DICKMAN: Madam Chair,
,procedurally, I'd- like to point out, .in a
court of law --
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Wait a
minute. We're not in a court of law here:
•Let's not even go into a court'of.law.
.MR.'DICKMAN:• Candidly, this is a
quasi-judicial matter.
'CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Wysong,.
24 would you like to.comment on why we're not a
25 court of law, please.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
12
1 MR. WYSONG: Well, actually, you do
4
5
6
10
11 •
12
have to afford Mr. Dickman the fundamentals
of due process. And although we're not in a
court of law, loose rules of evidence apply,
etc. However, a Motion To Dismiss has been
heard and now, there should be a response to.
the Motion To Dismiss before the Board takes
.any action.
MR. DICKMAN: Formally,. when an
attorney wants to proffer a Motion To
Dismiss, they will givenotice to the other
side that they are going to argue a Motion
13 To Dismiss so that the other side would have
14 an opportunity to prepare and argue those
15 points. My colleague knows this.
16 For the record, I'd like to put that
17 out there, that no notice to dismiss was
18 presented to me whatsoever.. That's fine, if
19 she.wants to make them. I have no problem
20 .with that. I just -want to put. on the
21 record., - in a court -of law, she .would' have
22'
23 CHAIRWOMAF.HERNANDEZ: Okay. But
24 we're not in.a court.of law.
25
been required to give notice.
Would you please. refer to them.
• Esquire Deposition Services {305) 371-2713
13
1 MR. DICKMAN: Number .one?
2 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Item two and
3 • four, so we can make a decision on those and
4 then we'll get back to three.
5 MR. DICKMAN: Yes, ma'am.
6 'Under Florida Law, Chapter 163 -- your
7 planning staff knows this well and
8 hopefully, -your attorney. does, .as well --
9- all development orders in the State of
10 Florida issued by municipalities are
11 required to comply with your Comp. Plan.
12 I'm sure all,of you are familiar with-
.
.13 your goals, objectives and policies in your
14 Comp. Plan, and I'm sure all of you -all have
15 been briefed on the weight this Comp. Plan
1.6 • carries with, it. That yoUr.decisions, staff
17 decisions, all of these decisions,.whether
18 they beland development regulations or land
19 use changes or requests for textual changes
20' in the. Comp: Plan development orders, i;e.,
21 building permits; need'to comply with your
22 Comp. Plan.
23. Your Comp. Plan does have provisions in
it for protecting adjacent and existing
25 residential neighborhoods. It's throughout
Esquire Deposition Services •(305) 371-2713
14
1 your future land use element and your
2 . housing element, to name two chapters that
3 are in your Comp. Plan. your own codes say
4 that the appeal can be made of any decision
5 of the Administrator. It ,does not limit it
6 to things that are just narrowly defined by
7
8
9'
10
11
12 development orders that'are contrary to. your
13
14
1,5
.16 use map amendment here. Nobody's alleging a
17 textual change. 'Of course,, that:would have
18 .a different direction. . It wouldn't
19 necessarily come to you. It..would go
20 through the Planning 'Advisory Board. and
21 .others.. .
22 Again, your decisions have to comport
23 with your Comp. Plan, your institutional
24.. directive of how this City will plan and
25 .grow, issue development'orders.
opposing counsel or
they had to meet,
You, in fact, are required to comply
with your Comp. 'Plan. .Under state 'law,
what they claim that
those development orders if you issue
goals, objectives and policies --- and S,
again -- of course, you're notchanging the
Comp. Plan. Nobody's alleging a future land
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
15
1 Do you want to rule on each item, one •
2
buy one?
3 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: _Have you
4 concluded.with the first item?
5 MR. DICKMAN: On the first item.
6 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Lourdes,
7 could you, please, comment again on the
8 first item?'
9 MS. SLAYZAK: Yes.
10 Of course, all development approvals in
11. the city comply with the Comp. Plan. What I
12 said was, or, I guess, maybe I needed to be
13 more clear, when -an application does not
14 include an amendment to the Comp. Plan, the
15 criteria,, the standards that we measure that.
16 application by are very different than when.
17 it's a special permit. None of these, the
18 1305 criteria., the. special permit criteria,
19 reflect the --directly the Comp. Plan.
20 The. City of. Miami's Comp. Plan was
21 • found to be,in compliance with our land
22 development regulations,' our zoning code.
23 . The two must match. They have to be in
24 •compliance. So if a .request for development
25.
appr.ov'al
comes
in and a development order:is.
if
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
16
2
3
4
5
6
7
granted and it complies with the zoning
code, it is in compliance with our Comp.
Plan.
The things that Mr..'Dickman was saying
about protecting neighborhoods from
encroachment of land uses or incompatible
development, those are all the -goals,
8 objectives and policies of our Comp, Plan.
9
.But if the .developer is not seeking to
10 change and he's got his land use and zoning
11. and'the development complies with, the rules.
12 of that land use and zoning, .then it is not
13 deemed an incompatible encroachment because
14 he is meeting the letter of the law for.
.15 zoning, and our zoning is in compliance with
16• our.Comp. Plan.
17 - So;•I don't believe that a:Comp. Plan
18 is -- throwing that out as a reason to deny..
19 a Class II, when there's no Comp. Plan
20 ;amendment being. sought. It's not.part of
21. the criteria, not what's before this Board.
22 You're hearing an appeal of a Class II
2.3 . special'Permit that's got different
24 criteria.
25 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you,
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
17
1 Lourdes.
2 Do any of the Board members have any
3 questions?
4 And if they don't, then is anybody
5 prepared to make. a 'motion for or against
6 dismissal of .part one of Item 4 -- no, 5 --
7 I'm sorry.
8 MALE VOICE: I move to deny the
9 appeal.
10 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: No. Okay.
11. Let me explain a minute. We're not working
12 .on the whole appeal, itself. On part one,
13 'Item Number 5. And .it's not an appeal.
14. Miss Dougherty's'proposi.ng to ---
. 15 MALE VOICE: Out of the four .
16
• 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sections, the one that's proper is 130.5,
correct? So .I move --
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
MALE VOICE: I move. to remove the
first -two and the fourth.
MALE VOICE 2: We haven't .heard a
response on those other -two elements.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: pardon. me?
MALE VOICE 2: From the appellant on
those other two arguments, so we're only
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
18
1
2
3
considering the first argument, which
relates to whether or not there is a basis
to appeal, based on an inconsistency.
4 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: That's what I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
was trying to explain. Just the part one of
Item Number 5.
MS. SLAYZAK: You should be
considering a motion either to dismiss the
first count or not to dismiss.
MALE VOICE: I move to dismiss the
first count.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Is there a
second, please.
ANOTHER MALE VOICE: I second.
15. . CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: There's.a.
16 motion and a second.
'17 Call the role, please.
18 THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
19 MR. GARBELA: Yes...
20 • THE CLERK: Mr. Ganguzza.
21 . MR. GANGUZZA: I just want to
22. comment, in response to Mr.' Dickman's
23 concern about being caught by surprise. You
24 knew, I'm a lawyer, too,. and I'd like to
25 . have notice of a motion like this. But in
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
19
1 this case, Miss Dougherty's pointing to, you
2 know,thebases that you set forth for the
3 appeal, and I don't think that you're
4 terribly put upon to defend that issue.
5 I would hope that you were prepared for
6 that, so I do not see an inconsistency in
7 the Comp. Plan issue, so I'm going to vote
8 yes in support of the motion -- the vote on
9 the motion.,
10 MS. SLAYZAK: You voted yes.
Continue, please. •.
THE CLERK: Mr. Pina.
MR. PINA: Yes.
14 .THE CLERK:. Mr. Shulman.
15 • MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
16 I understand the argument, Lourdes,
17 •. you're saying, is that .automatically;.the
18 zoninghas been deemed in"cpmplianc.e with.
19 the Comp. Plan. And therefore, if the
20 project is in compliance. with zoning-, then
21 automatically, at least for. legal
.22 . ..purposes -- .
.23 :. MS,- SLAYZAK: For the purposes of
24
25
•
this appeal, i.t is: not one of the. .criteria.
MR. S:HULMAN•: vote yes.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
20
1
2
3
4.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Urquiola.
MR. URQUIOLA Yes'.
THE CLERK: Mf., William:
MR.. WILLIAM: I guess, I for the.
5 City more, because :I vote yes.
6
7
8
9 zero.
10
11
12
13
THE CLERK: Miss Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
THE CLERK: Motion passes, eight to
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ:' Okay:
Mr. Dickman; would you, please, address
point two.
MR. DICKMAN: Let me also state that
14 in Article' 18, which is, generally, the
15
166
17
18.
19
criteria that.des.cribes what.. can and cannot
be appealed to this Board -- and'I'm going
-to read'verbatim..
It'says, "Appeals to the Board may be
taken by any person aggrieved or by. any
20 officers, Board or agencyof the City
21 . affected. by," and thisis paren 2,."any
22 -decision 'of the Director.of the Department
.23. 'of Planning, Bui.ldi.ng, 'Zoning, including,
24 but not limited to,' decisions involving
'25 • •Class • II Special' Permits."
11
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
21.
1
2
3
4
Nowhere in here does it limit. you to
just what Class IT Permits are required.
And let me clarify, as well, that, yes,
while zoning -- your zoning code, your land
5 development regulations may have been deemed
6 compatible with your Comp. Plan, it still
7 does not automatically bless your
8 development orders. Therefore, if your
9 development order is found to be contrary to
10 your zoning,
11
12
13
14
could very well be contrary
to your Comp. Plan. You don't --
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Did you go
back to'one?.
MR.. DICKMAN: No. .I'm on two. I'm
15 • on two. I'm talking:about your zoning code.
16 Your zoning code, your. lariddevelopment
17 regulations.:
18 And you are required,.. under the code;
19 to follow your land development regulations.
20 We have alleged .that this project --
21 . CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: When•it's
22 criteria that pertains to this Board..
23 MR. DICKMAN;• I'm pointing to -,.
24 . exactly to the code, Article 18, that Says.,
25 "any decision; including." It doesn't.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
22
1 exclude any other decisions.
2 So, we are bringing here, arguments
3 that start with the Comp. Plan and get down
4 to the zoning code. •
5 MR. WYSONG: Madam Chair, could I
6 add that Section 1618.06 of Article 18 says,
7 "Hearing Powers of Zoning Board. In
8 'exercising authority to review the decision
9 of the administrative official, the Zoning
10 Board shall have all the powers of the
11 officer from whom the appeal is taken and in
12 conformity with the provisions and.in
13 this -- in the law of zoning, may reverse. or
14 affirm, wholly or in part, or may modify the
15 decision appealed. from and may make such
16 .decision as''ought.to be made."
17 That dovetails with Miss Sl.ayzak's
18 comments, that you're sitting. in judgment of
19 the decision of theDirector of Planning,
20, not any decision, although. it says "any
21 decision," you.are limited to.the facts of•
22 this particular case and the applicable
•23 laws. And here is something, for example,.
24 •in the first count of the appeal, the Comp..
25 . Plan was never part of the Zoning Director's
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
decision; therefore, it wouldn't properly be
in front of this Board.
There are other remedies Mr. Dickman
may pursue regarding the Comp. Plan pursuant
to the statute, but the Zoning Board was not
the appropriate remedy.
MS. SLAYZAK: If there had been,
let's say, an interpretation of the Comp.
Plan, a written interpretation by the
Planning Director and that were to be
appealed, it would come to this body as an
12 appeal of the interpretation of the Comp.
.13 .Plan. What's here before you is an appeal
14 of a Class II. It was filed.as an appeal
15 a Class II, not an appeal of a Comp. Plan
16 interpretation of how something should.or.
.17 . . shouldn't apply to a piece of property.
18 You have to use the same criteria that •
19 the Director used in reviewing the Class II.
20 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ:. Would you.
21 . continue with number two.
22 MR. DICKMAN: The criteria includes
23 reviewing whether it's compatible with the.
24 Comp. Plan. I believe even Section 1305
25 says that.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
24
1 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Wysong,
2 do you agree?
3 I'm really not going to let this turn
4 into a legal thing. If that's the case,
5
6 attorney and.he can rebut it and you can go
7 back and forth, because I don't think
8 that --
then let's have you, you know, address the
9 MR. DICKMAN: I don't want to be
10 .• here all night either.
11 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Excuse .me.
12 I.don't think our attorney, City's
13 .. attorney 'or the Department is agreeing with
14 what you're stipulating.
15 MR. DICKMAN: That's okay:
16 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: I'm not an
17 attorney and not head of the department.
18 . Neither is anybody here on the Board. I'm
19 sorry. City attorney. •
.20 MR. DICKMAN: I can offer a
.21. solution.
Personally, if we could have just put
23 on our case .in chief, the. developer. could.
24 have made their. motions, we could have heard
25 all of.these at one time. Instead,. she has
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
25
1 forced you into hearing each one of these,
2 one at a time, and she could have very
3 easily made these arguments in her rebuttal
4 to our appeal.
5 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Let's stick
6 to part two of '907.3.2, please.
7 MR. DICKMAN: We allege that it's in
8 violation of that, of your zoning code.
9 You're required to follow the zoning code.
10 MS. DOUGHERTY: Not only one of the
11 criteria, it's untimely. That decision was
1.2 made by.the 'Zoning Administrator iri this
13 letter that's in your package in November of
14 2003. And that was not appealed. And just
15 like Mr. Dickman said, you can appeal any
16 decision by the Zoning Administrator, the.
17 Planning Department. He did not make that
18 appeal; therefore, it's untimely to -- not
19 only is it not part of the criteria, also
20 untimely.
21 .CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
22 Lourdes,would you, please, put anyone who
23 is not familiar with 907.3.2 up to date on
24 907.3.2.
25 MS. SLAYZAK: This is -- I'm just
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
26
1 going to give you a quick idea. When a
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 do the design review, then Zoning will sign
15 off and refer it for the Class II Special.
.16 . Permit.
Class II Special Permit is filed with the
City of Miami, the very first step in the
Class II Special Permit is for the applicant.
to take their development plans to the .
Zoning Division and Zoning does a review to
make sure that it otherwise complies with
zoning and all of the.other aspects,
setbacks,.height, parking •requirements,
green space, etc.
And once Zoning has determined that it
meets all of the zoning requirements and all
that's left to do is the Class II, where we
17 In this case, the Zoning signature,
18 which interpreted compliance.with the zoning
19
requirements was done, as Miss Dougherty
20. said,. in 2003 That decision of Zoning,was
21 not appealed. So, the Class II moved
22 • forward, . and that ' is: not' one of the criteria
23
24
25
for the Class II Special Permit.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
Okay. Board members, do you have any..
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
27
1 questions.or motions?
2 MALE VOICE: Motion to Dismiss point
3 two.
4 MALE VOICE 2:. I have .4 question.
5 Is the Class II in this particular, case
6 what does it encumber? What is it allowing
7 them to do?
8 MS. SLAYZAK: The Class II Special
9 Permit is for new construction of a
10 multi --family with some mixed use development
1.1 on Biscayne Boulevard. It is in the' SD-9
12 Special Zoning District.. That's why the
13 Class II .Special 'Permit is required, in
14 order to review it against the special
15 requirements of SD-9 and the 'design
16 considerations built into SD-9.
17 MALE VOICE 2: All that was done?
18 .MS..SLAYZAK: It complies with SD-9
19 at the time .that it was filed. SD-9 has
20 since been modified,but at the time that it
'21 was filed, it complies with SD-9.
22 MALE VOICE 3: Is.this on the. east •
23 side or west side of Biscayne Boulevard?
24
MS. SLAYZAK: It's on the east side
25 of Biscayne 'B.oulevard.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
28
1 MALE VOICE 3: This is taking into
2 consideration the water, the ninety feet'of
3 bonuses?'
4 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Actually, no.
5 This is not on the water and there's no
bonuses.
7 MALE VOICE 3: No bonuses.
8 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: It's only a
9 Class II. It's not a major use.
10 MALE VOICE 3: There'.s no variances?
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: N•o variances.
12 MALE VOICE 3: Okay. Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
14 Mr. Garavaglia.
15 MR. GARAVAGLIA: At the time when
16 you had that application for Class II permit
17 and when you make your consideration, is it
18 still compatible for two, their.
19 consideration, since you done June 11, 2003?
20 MS. SLAYZAK: I believe one of the
21 two applications, five and six., are similar.
22 in that they are a.block apart on Biscayne
23 Boulevard. One of the two does meet -- it
24 does meet the new height requirements of
25 SD-9. The other one does not. But it's
11
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
29
1 irrelevant because at the time it was -filed,
2 it did comply with SD-9.
3 MR. GARAVAGLIA: What is the
4 ..thoughts on limitation into this class, that
5 Class II Special Permit?
6 MS. SLAYZAK: As long as'it...stays on
7 appeal, the'new requirements will not kick
8 in. Once the appeal is settled, they have
9 six months to get a building permit. If
10
11
12.
13 •
14
-15 dismiss
.16
17
18 deciding.here. So I would move to dismiss
19 point two and point four and concentrate on
20 pointthree.
21 MALE VOICE: Second.
22 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Motion and
23 second.
24.' Call' the role,.please.
25 MR. WYSONG: Madam Chair, before you
they do not, then they have to comply with
the new SD-9.•
MR: GARAVAGLIA: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr.'Garbela..
.MR. GARBELA: Yes., I would move to
point two' and, preferably, point.
four,'because Lourdes just said that: it's
not.applicable to this -- what we're.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
30
1
4
dismiss Count four, since the motion
includes Count four, I would ask, you
know -- as we said, the loose rules of
evidence apply here; however', fundamentals
of due process should be afforded -to
6 Mr.. Dickman and he should be, at least,
7 entitled to a' response as to why 'count four
8 should or should not be dismissed.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GARBELA: I'm sorry, Mr. Wysong.
I forgot that point. So, motion to dismiss
point two.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
There's a motion and second.
Call the role, please.
THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
MR. GARBELA: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. Urquiola.
MR. URQUIOLA: Yeah.
THE CLERK: Mr. Ganguzza.
MR. GANGUZZA:. Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. Pina.
MR. PINA: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr.. Shulman..
MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. William.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
3.1
1 MR. WILLIAM: Yes.
2 THE CLERK: Ms. Hernandez.
3 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
4 THE CLERK: Motion passes
5 unanimously to dismiss part two of the
6 appeal.
7 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
8 Mr. Dickman..
9 Should I move on to part four?
10
11 alleged violation of the Special District
12 overlay 9, which is the intent to allow
13 development but protect the adjacent
14,
15
16 .
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. DICKMAN: Part four involves the
neighborhood. And we believe that not only
is this in. violation, but for the record,
procedurally, I believe that this is just
not the way a Motion To Dismiss should be
handled, just.for the record.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ.: .Thank you...
Lourdes, could you please address .point
four.. I think it's the same thing, SD-9.
MS. SLAYZAK:. Correct.
The SD.-9 was in the process o•f being
reviewed and modified when this application
was being processed. .It was ultimately.
iu
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-27.13
32
1 approved and it does impose some new height
2 limits on development on Biscayne Boulevard
3 and some setback modifications, but this
4 project was already in process and was
5 allowed to continue.
6 Again, once the appeals are all done,
7 they have six months•to get their building
8 permit or they will have to redesign the
9 project..
10 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
11 Board members, any questions or
12 motions?.
13 MALE VOICE: Motion to dismiss.
14 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
15 There's a motion to dismiss part four. Is
16 there a second?
17 MR. URQUIOLA: Second.
18 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: There's a
19 motion and second by Mr. Urquiola.
20 Call the role, please.
21 THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
22 MR. GARBELA: Yes.
23. THE CLERK: Mr. Urqui.ola.
24
25
MR. URQUIOLA:: Yes.
THE CLERK: Mr. Ganguzza.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
33
1 MR. GANGUZZA:. Yes.
2 THE CLERK: Mr. Garavaalia.
3 MR. GARAVAGLIA: Yes.
4 THE CLERK: Mr. Pina.
5 MR. PINA: Yes.
6 THE CLERK: Mr.. Shulman.
7 MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
8 THE CLERK: Mr'. William.
9 MR. WILLIAM: Yes.
10 THE CLERK:.. Miss Hernandez..
11 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Motion passes
13 unanimously to dismiss part four of the
14 appeal on Number 5.
15 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay. Part
16 three.
17 MR. DICKMAN: Section 1305.2 is a
18 design criteria recently amended by.the City
19 to put more standards in place for not only
20 the administration, but as well as the
.21. Board, to make decisions on special permits,
22 including Class II Special Permits. That
23 criteria is lengthy and it is detailed. It
24 requires you to look at. a lot of things,
25
including the compatibility with the Comp.
IC
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-27.13
1 Plan.
2 We believe that this project is, quite
3 frankly, quite simply, too big, out of
4 scale; incompatible with the adjacent homes
5 that are directly adjacent to that. Single
6 family homes that, perhaps, at their
7 tallest, are twenty feet. This property,
8 going from Biscayne back, is a very shallow
9 property. It may be a hundred ten feet
10 deep, at its most.. They're going to be
11 putting a large development on a very thin
12 piece of property and it will negatively
13 impact the adjacent neighborhood of
14 Morningside.
15 1305 deals with this. squarely and
16 directly:. It addresses compatibility and
17 scale, bulk and height and buffering. And I
18 believe this project does not meet that
19 requirement and, therefore, we are appealing.
20 it.
21 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
22 Lourdes, would you care to address
23 number three.
24 • MS. SLAYZAK: Well ---
25 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Well, if
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
3
you're not ready, Lucia can address it
2 again.
3 MS. SLAYZAK: Yeah. I think the
4 applicant goes next and then the City.
5 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
6 MS. DOUGHERT Y: Madam Chair, members
7 of the Board, this is a very modest project.
8 It is on the east side of U.S. 1. It is
9 currently where two.motels are located.
10 We have not asked for a major use
11 special permit, we have asked for no
12 variances, we have asked for no bonuses. It
13 is a district which currently has two motels
14 on -it, but the motels are no longer legal.
15 So, if the motels go. away, the• only thing
16 left that can be put on this property is
17 either .residential dr office, not even
18 retail:
19 And I say modest, because it used to
20 have.an unlimited height. .It no longer
21 does. But even in that context, the
22 Planning Department, my client, the
.23 architects, all strove to make this the most
24 compatible buildings. I'm actually doing
25 both buildings at the same time because ---
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-271 3
36
1 both applications at the same time.
2 And...I just want to show you this. 5101
3 Biscayne Boulevard. We originally started
4 out with eighty-five thousand square feet,
5 reduced to sixty thousand feet. We
6 originally had eleven floors, we reduced it
7 down to eight floors. Originally had 89
8 units, down to 63 units. Parking is what's
9 required.. The height. We used to have.117
10 feet, now down to 87 feet. So, on 5101, we.
11 actually have less height than is permitted
12 in today's code.
13 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Lucia, bear
14 with me ' on.e minute.
15 .Would you please read item number --
16 since Lucia is referring to it, Item Number
17 6.
18 MALE VOICE: Number 5.•
19 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: No. Item
20 Number -6.
21 THE CLERK: Approximately 5225
22 Biscayne Boulevard. It is an appeal by
23 Andrew Dickman, Esquire, on behalf of the .
24 Morningside Civic.Associati.on, Inc. and Rod
25 A.lonso,: Ron Stebbins, Scott Crawford and
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371.2713
37
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Elvis Cruz of the Class II Special Permit
2 Application No. 03-0308, approved with
3 conditions by the Planning Director on July
4 21, 2004 for new construction.
5 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you.
6 That way, it's already read into the
record. As you refer to it, Lucia,
everybody knows what we're talking about.
MR. DICKMAN: Madam Chair, if I
.could make a quick suggestion, and if
Counsel agrees.
If Counsel's going•to make the same
argument she made in the last item, we'll
agree that everything incorporated from that
hearing will go to this one. We'll say the
same things, reargue the same things.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: If we do
that, how do we. go about doing that? Do we
do it when the time comes? Can we do it
now, so we have it fresh in but mind?
MR. WYSONG: When the time comes, we
should also say the comments from this
matter will be revised and extended to the
next 'mattr, and 'then you can say to the next
matter, and' then you can vote. They have to
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
38
1
4
5
6
7
be voted on separately.
But, also, I imagine, since you
dismissed Counts one, two and four of this
appeal, you have to address .those Counts
separately, if you want to, on the next
appeal.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: 'That's what
Counsel is suggesting,, which we all agree
with wholeheartedly.
10 MR. DICKMAN: Put that in the full
11 motion for that item?
12 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes, the
13 same.
14 MS. DOUGHERTY: The same discussion
15 for both items. 5225,-we had, originally,
.16 eighty thousand square feet. We. reduced it.
17 down to sixty --one. Eleven floors, we
18 reduced to eight and a half floors. Ninety
19 Units down to sixty-seven units. The height
20 was, again, .117 . feet . It is. now 97 ,feet,
21 which is -- .97 feet, four inches, which is
22. two feet, four inches higher than the code
223 allows youu.today.
24 So, it was the Gity staff, it was the
25 Urban Development Review.Board, it. was our'
Esquire Deposition Services (305)371-2713
39
2
3
4
5
8
architects, and•it was our client, who
addressed the issue of whether or not this
was compatible and scaled, and they did that
in.the context of this application. If you
look at --
And I'm going to pass out -- I'm going
to have Gloria pass out the standards that
apply.
9 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Dickman,
10 were you .aware of these changes?
11
:12
13
Or are you saying that was made
initially, Lucia?
MS. DOUGHERTY: I'm sure he's aware
14 of
15 MR, DICKMAN: Yeah, we.'re aware of
16
it
17 MS. DOUGHERTY: So, Gloria
18 Velazquez, my partner, is passing out the •
19 ' standards of 1305. And you'll see in.the
20 standards, .it -says you have to review for --
.21 this is the planning staff and now you --
22 "review for appropriateness shall -be given
23 to potentially adverse effects generally and
24 on adjacent and nearby properties of the •
25 area, the neighborhood, the city or the use
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
40
1 .or occupancy proposed."
2 And now, here's what I want you to
3 focus on. "Where such potentially.adverse..
4 effects are.found, consideration shall be
5 given to special remedial measures in
6 appropriate -- in particular circumstances
7 of the. case, including. screening, • buffering•,
8: landscaping, control of manner of hours of
9. operation, alterations of the design and
10 construction of the buildings, relocation of
11
12.
proposed'open space or .other such,reasures.
as are required, to assure that the
13 potential adverse effects are.. eliminated or.
14 minimized'to the maximum extent reasonably
.15 feasible "
16. Like I started out saying, we started.
17 this application in November.of 03. It.is
18 now -W has .been seven or eight' months. We
:19' have gotten major use special permits in..
20 less.time.. Consistently., with the UDRB,.
21 with the planning staff, with the architec.t •
22 • and with our client, is reducing this
23 building to the extent that we. believe it is
24 compatible,. it is in scale, it is the right
25 and very modest project for this property.
Esquire Deposition Services. (305) 371-2713
41
1 And I'd like Bernard.Zyscovich, who is
2
6
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
• 19
.20
21
22
23.
24
25
on your architect, to -come forward and
.describe the project for you.
MR: TALBOT: Thank you.
What Lucia just described to you, in
of numbers, these are the effects of
terms
the buildings. This is what we initially
created for the proposal, related to the
building, I think, at . 117 feet,. This one
was what was.approved by the Urban Design
Review •Board.••You can see we kept pushing
it down. And in the urban redesign, there
is another iteration where we brought it
down even more in. order to work with the
best that we could with staff andthe'•
Planning Department, to get the building to
its current situation.
So, you can see.there's been a very
very significant drop in terms. of the
building design, the building height, the -
number of units. Approximately; twenty-five
percent of the base FAR forget the bonus,
fcrget.all the extras that, most of the
time, we go through with our client. .Just
the base FAR, as originally required as a
11
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
42
A
1 maximum in the .code, has been reduced 'by
2 twenty-five percent. So the building is,
3. actually, seventy-five percent the size that
4 it would be as a baseline.
. 5 When the code.has finally arrived at'
6 its final conclusion, in terms of the
7 height, we have one building at 87 feet, the
8 other building is at 97 feet. The building
9
•10
11 '
'12 • going on through what is now almost'a year,.
13
14
•
code has a maximum.height of 95 feet.
So, in terms of the compatibilty, even
after all of the iterations that:have been
l's
s.
this building, in very many respects, not
ll, is, essentially, the type of building
15 height'and configuration that woulcLbe
'16 allowable today,' after ali,of the code work'
17 . has been accomplished.
18 And as 1 said, a. voluntary. reduction in
19 the size and overall.scale.of the building.
20 We've also gone to .the trouble of trying to
21 understand whaes hapPening'on Biscayne
.22 Boulevard.and what are the issues:Of
23 compatibility. We.have some projects up
24 here in the: northern edge. Here' s Biscayne
25 Boulevard.
•
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
43
1 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: That's about
2 to fall. I thought I was getting, dizzy.
3 MR. TALBOT: Here'..s our two blocks.
4 And we have project number one at 60th.
5 Street and. 58th Street. These are both.
6 buildings that are already, more or less, at
the same height as this one. As you drive •
8 down Biscayne Boulevard, you'll probably see
9 them being renovated. I think one of them
10 is having.the skin replaced.
11 'And then we went into Morningside and
12 .we actually took pictures, put the building
13 in that has been designed, into a photo
14 montage, to help understand what the impact
15 is on- each of the streets that are there.
•16 These are done in good faith, with the best
17 • of our abilities; to show you what the
18 impact is within the neighborhood..
.19 • And then, finally, these drawings show
20 you the impact of what the building's
21 appearance would be on Biscayne Boulevard.
22 And again; we think that they're very
23.' • compatible with the existing issues.
24 One of the things that has not been
25 mentioned, because all of the focus has
' Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
44'
1. really been based upon the property owners
2 on the single family side, Biscayne
3 Boulevard, and all of the planning of the
4 City, is considered to be the major
5 boulevard of .the City, the right-of-way is a
6 minimum of 100 feet wide.
7 In every urban design component that
8 I'm aware of related to the major
9 streetscape -- and I'm sure many of you have
10 traveled and have seen.the avenues and
11 boulevards of major cities, and 95 foot
12 height 'for hundred foot right -of --way is not
13 an imposing scale. We believe that the
14 project is very much in scale..
15 I think that there has.been a lot of
16 movement in the City to remove unlimited..
17 height, to constantly be pushing this down.
18 We'understand that the lots, themselves, are
19 quite narrow. But.by the same token, there
20 is an element of the boulevard that needs to
.21 have some impact and some presence, and it's
22 our belief that this project is very much in
23 scale.
24 So,.to summarize, the street has been
25 activated. 'We've taken the common areas of
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
45
1 the building, because retail is not allowed,
2
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
and we've taken and applied all of the good.
elements of urban design. You see
activities at the street. You don't see
parking at the.street level. We brought the
size and bulk of the buildings down.
And in many respects, it is not only
compatible,' buteven almost in compliance
with all of the requirements that would be
applicable in the SD-9.
With that, I conclude our comments. We
have some'additional boards, if you want me
13. to go into it. I don't think this is a
14 design session, but we have that
•
15. . . information, if you're interested. And
16 thank you very much.
•17 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you:
18 MR. PINA: I have a question. 1
19 have a question for him.
.20 You mentioned, your last sentence, that
21 some of this is compatible with SD-9.
22 MR. TALBOT: I didn't say•
23 . compatible. I said compliant.
24 MR. PINA: Compliant.
25 MR. TALBOT: Compliant. There's
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713 •
46
1 certain aspects in the SD-9, in the. current
2
5
6
7
configuration, that this building does not
comply with. We exceed the setbacks. We're
right about at the same height. There are
certain issues regarding a new 45 degree
angle setback that we don't comply with.
And what elsedon't we comply with?
8 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Let me
9 interrupt you for a minute and ask our
10 attorney, .in considering this, are we
11 .supposed to be using SD-9 and 907.3.2 as it
12 ' was when this was approved, or as it is now?
13 I just want to have it reiterated,please.
14 MR. WYSONG: You have to look at it,
15. what was approved at the time.
16 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: What was in
17
place when it was approved, not what it
18 now.
19 MR. WYSONG: Correct.
20 MR. PINA: And I understand that.
21 But for my own information.
22 MR. TALBOT: We're disclosing that
23 information. What I'm trying to say is,
24. even though, under the original application,
25 we could have created a much bigger.
Ai
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713'
47
1 building, we've been doing everything that.
2 we know how to do to bring it down, bring
3 the scale down and even today, when you
4 talked about the impact, most people are
5 talking about the height of the building.
6 We're within a couple feet of 95 feet. In
7 one case, below 95 feet.
8 So, it's our belief this is a very
9 compatible building and is the type of
10 building that represents a lot of efforts' on
11 everybody's part to try and make it as
12 acceptable as possible to the people who
13 believe that it shouldn't be here at all.
14 MR. ETNA: Three things. The
15 . angle --
16 MR. TALBOT:• The angle -- it's the
17
18
19
20 narrow:lot. And T think the podium height.
21 . Were a little higher on. the podium.
22 MR. SHULMAN: T have two questions,
23 sir.
24 One is, what is your egress and
25 ingress?
angle, the setback no. . The setbacks, we
exceed what is there now. Minor use is
above, because it'simpossible, with such a
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
48
1 MR. TALBOT: It's on the side
2 streets.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MR. SHULMAN: You going to have
valet parking?
MR. TALBOT: 1 don't think so.
MS. DOUGHERTY: And both side
streets, in both cases, are closed. In
other words, they don't go into the
neighborhood. They're closed streets. I
forgot to tell you that.
MR. SHULMAN: And your parking --
How many units, first of all?
13 MR. TALBOT: We have 63 on 5101 and
14 we have 67 on 5225.
15 MR. SHULMAN: So, which one's the
16 Last model you have, between those three?
17 . Which is the one you planning to •---
18 MR. TALBOT: The smallest
19 MR. SHULMAN: The small one.
20 MR. TALBOT: In both cases.
21 MR. SHULMAN:. And parking,you going
22 to have parking?
23 MR. TALBOT: Structured parking.
24 You comein on the side street, you. go up
25 the ramp and then you have two floors of
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
49
1 parking and then you have -floors of units.
2 MR. SHULMAN: How many parking space
3 you be able.--
4 MR. TALBOT: We have 83 where
5 there's 67, and 89 where there's 63.
6 MR. SHULMAN: You going to have
7 (inaudible) in the first floor and the
8 entertainment stuff.
9 MR. TALBOT: No, no. We're having
10 common area, the gym, the lobby, you know,.
11 whatever we're allowed to have that's part
12 of the apartment building, because part of
13 Biscayne Boulevard isn't zoned for --
14 MS. DOUGHERTY: You're not allowed
15 to have any retail in.this part. The only
16 thing you can of is residence and 'office.
17 That's it.. So. we don't intend to have
18. offices. This is going to be common areas
19 for the condominium.
20 MR. TALBOT: For the residents are
21 allowed -- we moved it down .to the first •
22 floor.
23 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
24 Lourdes, do you have any comments on part
.25 three? Continuing saga.
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
50
1 MS. SLAYZAK: 'I know.
2 1305, the Planning and Zoning
3 Department believes that the application is
4 in complains with 1305 . • As the applicant
5 stated early on, this is Class II Special.
6 Permit that took, approximately, eight
7 months, which is seven months longer than
8 most of them take. It went back and forth'
9 with the. Internal Design Review Committee
10: . and UDRB, trying. to find the kind of
11 conditions that could mitigate.any potential
12 adverse affects.
13 What was difficult with this one was
14 SD-9 was in progress and -we were not allowed
15 to apply the new SD-.9.. Through our design
.16 review comments,we gave a lot of:very
17 similar comments, .and the applicant
18 responded by modifying the project
1,9 tremendously in order to bring it down.
20 So I believe that the Planning 'Director
21 minimized all of the potential adverse
22 effects to the maximum extent possible,
23 .utilizing the conditions and safeguards that
24 were allotted to us through 1305 and the
25 'zoning ordinance.
is
.r'svLudielAt:l�t;��.xai
i
•
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
51
1 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank .you.
2 Is there anybody else who would like to
3 speak for or against this item?
4 Mr. Dickman; is there any, like,.small
5 little comments you'd like to make?
6 MR. DICKMAN: Yes,
7 In closing, I'd like to just put into
8 the record Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which
9 are things that Counsel's very well aware
10 of, the goals, objectives and policies of
.11 the Comp. Plan, as well as the variety of
12 letters we submitted on the appeal. Like
13 put those into the record just for that.
14 And 'once again, we'll close just by
15 saying we believe that all of the citations.
16 that we referenced in our appeal, including
17 and involving 1305.2, I believe, require
18 you, under that code, as well as SD-9, to
19 take into full 'consideration the existing
20 residential neighborhoods, which are the.
21 .life blood of the upper east side.
22' If you don't have single family
to
23 residential, medium income houses, where
24 people can live and raise their families and
25 you continue to allow large scale
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-27] 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
52
speculative development to abut up against
it, you axe hacking away at the resource
that drives this community. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you. U.
{
MS. DOUGHERTY: Just for the record,
I have to object to the goals and policies
being submitted into evidence. I know he's
just proffering it for the record.
9 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Thank you'.
10 We will now close the meeting to the
11 public and open it up to the Board for
12 motions, discussion.
13 I might just add that I think that it's
14 a wonderful idea if that -- any area in the
15 city could be kept for just residential and
16 medium income, but I can't see anybody being
17 able to afford,, with a medium income, to
18 .build one house on any of these lots
19 anymore.. Unfortunately or fortunately.
20 .. Okay, Board members.
21 MR. PINA: Madam Chair.
22 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
23 Mr. Pina.
24 MR.. PINA: .Although -we saz.d °the..
.25. character of our neighbo.r.hoods . is what make.s
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
1 our City, and I always had feeling that the
53
3i
2
code had to be changed, there was. some
3 things in the code that needed to be
4 changed, but that's what we're working with.
5 The applicant has made a proper application
6 within the guidelines of the time. You
7 can't change the ballgame and say, it's not
8 three outs, it's now two outs in the middle
9 of the ballgame.
10 So I think they've done everything.
11 And in addition to that, the comments by
12 staff where they went ahead and said, look,
13 throughout the middle of this, we made some'
14 adjustments with the capacity that we had at
15 the time, to modify this, to comply as much
16 as what's going to be in place, which is. the
17 SD-9. So --
18 . CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: You going to
19 make a motion.
20 MR. PINA: Unless my colleagues.:want
21 to.
22. I uphold the Director's decision.
23 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Woll,.make
24 .the motion, please.
25 MS: SLAYZAK:'.'The motion would be,
Esquire Deposition Services. (305) 371-2713
54 1
1 deny the appeal and uphold the decision of
2 the Director of Planning and Zoning.
3 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
4 There's a motion. Is there a second?
5 MR. GARAVAGLIA: Second.
6 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: There's a
7 motion and a second by Mr. Garavaglia,
8 THE CLERK: This result, is this
9 only part three?
10 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes. Well,
11 it's only part three, but'it finishes off
12 the item. Okay. Go ahead.
13 THE CLERK: It was seconded.
14 MR. GARBELA: Are we voting on
15 'denying the whole thing right now?.
16 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes. This is
17 number three, but that's the only.one left.
18 MR. GARBELA: About to.deny or grant
19 the appeal?
20 MS. SLAYZAK: You dismissed three of
21 the four grounds. for appeal and you're
22 voting on the appeal of the one remaining
23 ground.
.24 THE CLERK:Mr. Pina.
25 MR. PINA: Yes:
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
55
1 THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
2 MR. GARBELA: Yes.
3 THE CLERK: Mr. Flowers. Let the
4 record reflect -- oh, he left again.
5 Okay. Mr. Ganguzza.
6 MR. GANGUZZA: Yes.
7 THE CLERK: Mr. Garavaglia.
8 MR. GARAVAGLIA: Yes.
9 THE CLERK: Mr. Shulman.
10 MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
11 I'd like to also say I agree with the
12 • general concept that there are compatibility
13 issues globally in the City. I think there
14 ar.e problems I think the zoning is
15 changin.g, and I think that's.. beginning to
16 bring these projects more into context. But
1.7
18 benefited from that process, scaled down.
19 All that as part of the process. And so --
20 And I really do feel that, as a user of
21 Biscayne Boulevard, this is also a .good
22 Project for Biscayne Boulevard.
23 So, yes.
24 THE CLERK: Mr. Urquiola.
25 MR. URQUIOLA: Yes.
this project clearly.went through a process,
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
56 ''
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
THE CLERK: Mr. William.
MR. WILLIAM: Yes.
THE CLERK: Miss Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
THE CLERK: Motion passes
unanimously.
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Mr. Pina,,
would you like to make the motion on the
following item,as we had discussed?
10 MR. PINA: To deny the appeal and
11 uphold the Director's decision.
12 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Which has
13 already been voted on the record.
14 MS. SLAYZAK:. Let me just ask the
15: Assistant City Attorney, do they have to
16 vote on dismissing one, two and four again?
17 MR. WYSONG: I think the applicant
18 should make that motion and incorporate the
19 arguments from Item 5•into Item 6.
20 Otherwise, it would be the entire appeal.
21 that you'd be voting on.
22 MS. DOUGHERTY: I do that. I
23 request that you dismiss grounds one, two
24 and four and incorporate all of our
25 discussion from the last -- from Item Number
g
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
57
is
1 5into Item Number 6.
2 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: One, two;
3 three and four.
4 MS. DOUGHERTY: No. We're not
5 asking for you -- I'm only asking for the
6 dismissal of one, two and four. and then I
7 would ask you to approve -- deny the appeal
8 ultimately.
9 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay.
10 MR. DICKMAN: Can I just -- for the
11 record, we'll incorporate all of our
12 arguments on those three dismissals and
13 also, arguments on .the final --
14 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Decision.
15 .MR. DICKMAN:. --- denial.
16 How did 'I dd with that?
17 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: That sounds
18 good.
19 Okay. There's a motion. A second?
20 MR. GARBELA: Second.
21 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Motion,. and
22 second by Mr. Garbela..
23 THE CLERK: Okay. This motion
24 MS. SLAYZAK: Is to dismiss
25 grounds - .
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
58
1 THE CLERK: Two and four.
2 MS. SLAYZAK: Right. And deny the
3 appeal as a whole.
4 THE CLERK: It was moved by Mr.?
5 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Pina,
6 seconded by Mr. Garbela.
7 THE CLERK: Thank you.
8. Mr. Pina.
9 MR. PINA: Yes.
10 . THE CLERK: Mr. Garbela.
11 MR. GARBELA:. Yes.
12 THE CLERK: Mr. Ganguzza.
13 MR. GANGUZZA: Yes.
1.4 THE CLERK: Mr. Garavaglia.
15 MR. GARAVAGLIA: Yes.
16 THE CLERK: Mr Shulman.'
17 MR. SHULMAN: Yes.
18 THE CLERK: Mr. Urquiola.
19 MR. URQUIOLA: Yes.
20 THE CLERK: Mr. William.
21 MR..WILLIAM: Yes.
22 THE CLERK: Miss Hernandez..
23 CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Yes.
24 .THE CLERK: Motion passes
25 . unanimously. .
Esquire Deposition -Services (305) 371-2713
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
CHAIRWOMAN HERNANDEZ: Okay. Thanks
very much. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the hearing as to Item Nos.
5 and 6 was concluded.).
Esquire Deposition Services (305) 371-2713
60
CERTIFICATE
2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing,
4 pages 1 to and including 59, is a true and
5 correct transcription of my stenographic
6 notes, to the best of my ability and
7
8
9
hearing, of a videotape transcription of the
Miami Zoning Board Hearing, at the City.
Hall, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida, on
10 the 4th day of October, 2005, commencing. at
11 6:00 o'clock P.M.. Not all speakers were
12 . able to be .identified via the videotape.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto
14 affixed my hand this 1st day of November,
15 2005.
16
17
18
19
20'
21•
22
23.
24
25
Kathleen:Schwab
Notary Public - State of Florida
Commission No.: DD456716
Commission Expires: 08/01/2009
Esquire Deposition Services (305)371-2713