HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2016-09-22 Minutes (Revised)City of Miami
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, September 22, 2016
9:00 AM
Planning and Zoning
City Hall Commission Chambers
City Commission
Tomas Regalado, Mayor
Keon Hardemon, Chair
Ken Russell, Vice Chair
Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One
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 September 22, 2016
CONTENTS
PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
AM -APPROVING MINUTES
MV - MAYORAL VETOES
CA - CONSENT AGENDA
PA- PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS
FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RE - RESOLUTIONS
AC -ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSIONS
BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS
PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S)
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
M - MAYOR'S ITEMS
D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS
D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS
D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS
D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS
D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS
FUTURE LEGISLATION
Citv ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Commissioner Gort, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez
and Chair Hardemon
On the 22nd day of September 2016, 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 Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 9:08 a.m.,
recessed at 12: 07 p.m., reconvened at 2:03 p.m., recessed at 4:02 p.m., reconvened at 4:12 p.m.
and adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Note for the Record: Vice Chair Russell entered the Commission chambers at 9:09 a.m.,
Commissioner Gort entered the Commission chambers at 9:10 a.m., Commissioner Carollo
entered the Commission chambers at 9:11 a.m., and Commissioner Suarez entered the
Commission chambers at 9:20 a.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager
Victoria Mendez, City Attorney
Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
Commissioner Gort: Welcome to the September 22 meeting of the City of Miami City
Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Wifredo
Gort, Frank Carollo, Francis Suarez; Ken Russell, the Vice Chairman; and me, Keon
Hardemon, the Chairman. Also on the dais are the City Manager, Daniel J. Alfonso; Victoria
Mendez, the City Attorney; and Todd Hannon, our City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with
a prayer; and the pledge of allegiance, led by the Vice Chairman. Everyone, please stand.
Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
PRA
16-01328
Honoree Presenter Protocol Item
Sebastian & Mayor Regalado Commendation
Brandon Martinez
Brandyss Howard Mayor Regalado & Certificate of
Chair Hardemon Appreciation
PRESENTED
1) Mayor Regalado presented a proclamation and recognized Sebastian Martinez, an
8 -year-old who is the CEO and designer for Are You Kidding, a stylish kid entrepreneurial sock
company founded by two young brothers. Are You Kidding has had the most successful
campaign to date in the Live Like Bella initiative by selling 13, 000 pairs of socks. Sebastian
Martinez's sprit of entrepreneurship and community service has greatly contributed to the
citizens of the City of Miami.
2) Mayor Regalado presented a proclamation and recognized Brandon Martinez, the Director
of Salesfor Are You Kidding, a stylish kid entrepreneurial sock company founded by two young
City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
brothers. Are You Kidding has had the most successful campaign to date in the Live Like Bella
initiative by selling 13, 000 pairs of socks. Brandon Martinez's spirit of entrepreneurship and
community service has greatly contributed to the citizens of the City of Miami.
3) Mayor Regalado and Chair Hardemon presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Brandyss
Howard, paying tribute for her planning and execution of the Overtown Back to School Event
and thanked Ms. Howard for her commitment to community service initiatives in the City of
Miami.
Chair Hardemon: We will now make the presentations and proclamations.
Presentations and proclamations made.
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Gort, to APPROVE PASSED by
the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
MAYORAL VETOES
ORDER OF THE DAY
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of July 14, 20167
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved, and seconded by the Chairman. Is there any
further discussion regarding that motion to approve the minutes? Seeing none, all in favor, say
aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
END OF APPROVING MINUTES
NO MAYORAL VETOES
Chair Hardemon: Mr. City Clerk, are there any mayoral vetoes?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: So we will now begin our regular meeting. The City Attorney will state the
procedures to be followed during this meeting.
Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Thank you, Chairman. Any person who is a lobbyist,
including all paid persons or firms retained by a principal to advocate for a particular decision
by the City Commission must register with the City Clerk and comply with related City
requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the City Commission. A person may not
lobby a City official, board member or staff member until registering. A copy of the Code
section about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's Office, or online on wwwmunicode.com
[sic]. Any person making a presentation, formal request or petition to the City Commission
concerning real property must make the disclosures required by the City Code in writing. A
copy of this Code section is available in the City Clerk's Office or online at wwwmunicode.com
City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
[sic]. The material for each item on the agenda is available during business hours at the City
Clerk's Office, and online 24 hours a day at wwwmiamigov. com [sic]. Any person may be
heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any
proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is
being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later date before
the City Commission takes action on such proposition. The Chairman will advise the public
when the public may have the opportunity to address the City Commission during the public
comment period. When addressing the City Commission, the member of the public must first
state his or her name, his or her address, and what item will be spoken about. A copy of the
agenda item titles will be available at the City Clerk's Office and at the podium for your ease of
reference. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission for any matter
considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item. A video of this meeting may
be requested at the Oce of Communications or viewed online at wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. No
cell phones or other noise -making devices are permitted in Commission chambers; please
silence those devices now. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outburst in support or
opposition to a speaker or his or her remarks shall be permitted. Any person making offensive
remarks or who becomes unruly in the Commission chambers will be barred from further
attending Commission meetings, and may be subject to arrest. No signs or placards shall be
allowed in the Commission chambers. Any person with a disability requiring assistance,
auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. The lunch recess will
begin at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon. The
meeting will end either at the conclusion of the deliberation of the agenda item being
considered at 10 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs
first. Please note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by the City staff and the City
Attorney on items on the agenda today. At this time, the Chairman will advise the next
proceeding. Thank you.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: Moving on now to our public comments section of this meeting. If you are
here for public comment on your consent agenda, public hearing, first reading ordinances and
resolutions, and also boards and committees, this is your opportunity to be heard. So ifyou are
here from the public and you'd like to speak on any item that is from CA.1 to CA. 6; PH.1 to
PH 3; FR.I to FR. 3; and RE.1 through RE. 10 --
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: -- well, before we open up that, I just want -- I should ask, are there any
continuances or any withdrawals and such before we do that?
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, Mr. Chairman, ifI may. We -- the Commission -- the City Administration
would like to request that items FR. 1, FR.3 and RE.5 be deferred to the second meeting in
October; that is on October 27.
Commissioner Gort: What was the last one?
Mr. Alfonso: RE.5.
Chair Hardemon: So FR. 1, FR.3 --
Mr. Alfonso: And RE.5.
Chair Hardemon: -- and RE.5. Are there any other continuances or withdrawals from the
Commission?
City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: It'll come up again at the PZ (Planning & Zoning) hearing, but I just
wanted to let folks know who are watching, PZ. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are intended to be deferred.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Are there any other PZ items from the Administration that'd like to be
continued?
Mr. Alfonso: I don't have any at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman -- okay, hold on.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Mr. Alfonso: No, we're good, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: RE. 5, why is that being--?
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chair -- Commissioner, RE.5 is the item that is considering having the
Miami Parking Authority manage the parking facilities, our boat ramps and parks for
weekends. We just need to change the language on the item. It was brought as "retroactive. "
It's not retroactive, and we need to clam the issue of the fees and when they're going to be
charged. So it's going to happen; we just need to make sure that that's quite clear, so we're
going to bring that back.
Commissioner Gort: I want to make sure you get a hold of me, because I have two of them in
my district.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, Commissioner.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if we will be requesting a
deferral or not, but I just -- that's why I want to make it known that we may defer, and that's
PZ. 14, which is an item in District 3.
Chair Hardemon: All right. So is there a motion to continue items FR.1, FR.3 --
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Chair Hardemon: -- and RE.5?
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved, and seconded by the Chairman. Any --
City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Chair.
Chair Hardemon: -- further discussion? Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Is this the appropriate time for order of the day, as well? And I would like
to see if we could move the D2 [sic] discussion item to just after the public hearing section.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. We're handling the motion that's on the floor right now, and then we'll
just -- we'll address that just afterward.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: That motion passes.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: I don't know if you received my email requesting the pocket item that I
have to be heard right after lunch?
Chair Hardemon: You said you wanted to handle it after lunch.
Commissioner Gort: After lunch.
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Gort: The first item after lunch.
Chair Hardemon: Right. We'll call -- Just remind me --
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: -- at that time, and we'll call it up. And the discussion item is --
Vice Chair Russell: D2 discussion item regarding the City Attorney and the special attorney
that we are going to appoint.
Chair Hardemon: You want to handle that after --?
Vice Chair Russell: After public hearing.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So right now, I'm going to open up the public comment section of this
agenda. The public comment section is for our consent agenda, our public hearing section, our
first reading ordinances and our resolutions, and also our boards and committees. If you're
here to discuss any item that is there, this is your time to approach the lectern. You have two
minutes to speak, so please announce your name, your address, and what item it is that you're
here to speak about.
City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Nathan Kurland: Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen in the audience. My
name is Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue, Coconut Grove. Just because I wear a shirt like
this, does it mean I support the right to bear arms? If a deaf man has to go to court, is it still
called a hearing? And if a no -arm man has a gun, is he armed? The reasons I say these things,
as you have grown to know me over the last 10 years, is that I always believe humor gets the
attention of the audience. I stand before you today to talk about RE.9. I am opposed to RE.9
for many of the reasons that Ms. Solares pointed out in her discussion. But because -- more
than that. In the last 10 years, I have missed sir Commission meetings. On many of those days,
the reasons that these Commissions went -- Commission meetings went for more than 10, 11 and
12 hours is because two and a half to three-hour lunches; because of shade meetings that take
place in the afternoon; because quorum was not met in the morning, and we sat around here,
waiting, until a quorum was found. I also want to point out a problem that we have sometimes
with some of our Commissioners, and that is, when you go in to have a meeting with a
Commissioner, you're told, "The first available meeting is in November or December, " long
after the item you wish to talk about is over. Commissioner Hardemon, I have a great respect
for you, sir. And you are a criminal attorney, as I believe, but imagine if you were given the
option of have -- not the option -- if you were forced to make your defense of your client in the
morning, and yet, the prosecution was allowed to give their case in the afternoon, and you were
not allowed to say one thing. You couldn't cross-examine a prosecution witness. You couldn't
listen to their argument and point out its deficiencies. And that's basically what I believe we're
being offered today. I believe Grace offered a compromise to that, which is that, yes, people
who want to speak can speak in the morning, and not miss a day of work, have that right to do
so. And yet, if you wish to speak after an item is presented and challenge some of the facts
given, that we should, as members of the public, be allowed to do that. Thank you for your
time, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Oh, Grace.
Grace Solares: Grace Solares, 60 Southwest 30th Road. RE. 9, this goes to the heart of what I
just spoke about, but there is an extraordinarily egregious part of RE.9 that I'd like to read to
you. "Commission shall consider all items in a given section of an agenda in one vote. " That
is scary. Then you mean to tell me you have 20 Planning & Zoning? Because it says, "any
section of the agenda. " You have 20 items under that, and you're going to take -- "Well, you
what? They spoke in the morning, so let's just take one vote in the afternoon. Those in favor of
passing 1 through 20, go ahead, passed. " That language is really, really scary.
Commissioners, please, do not vote on this resolution. It's horrific. It's a resolution giving the
City Manager instructions to draft an ordinance in order to amend it in this fashion. Please do
not do it. This is horrific to us, the people who elected you. Thank you so much.
Chair Hardemon: Before we go further, the way that this resolution is worded is not sufficient,
so if the board would consider, I'd like to withdraw RE.9 --
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: --because I don't think that the way that it is drafted is sufficient to meet the
cause of what we're trying to do.
Commissioner Suarez: I'll move to withdraw.
Commissioner Carollo: I'll second.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll second.
Chair Hardemon: And properly moved and seconded. Any unreadiness to it? Seeing none, all
City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: So that's withdrawn, RE. 9.
Brett Bibeau: Brett Bibeau, managing director of the Miami River Commission, with offices
located at 1407 Northwest 7th Street. Good morning, Honorable City Commission, City
Administration, members of the public. Miami River Commission is here to support three items
on your agenda today. CA.5, we respectfully recommend approval of CA.5, to accept a grant in
the amount of 250, 000 from the State of Floridafor the City of Miami's Wagner Creek and
Seybold Canal Maintenance Dredging and Environmental Cleanup Project. We support RE.3,
which extends necessary project management, technical procurement assistance and
construction support services for the City of Miami's fully funded and permitted Wagner Creek
and Seybold Canal Maintenance Dredging and Environmental Cleanup Project. And finally,
on D1.1, the Miami River Commission respectfully recommends more beds and/or cots be
available to assist the homeless. Thank you, and we appreciate your continued support for the
Miami River.
Vice Chair Russell: Brett likes this system. He's going to breakfast now.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, you're recognized.
Renita Samuels -Dixon: Good morning. Renita Samuels -Dixon, Coconut Grove Ministerial
Alliance, Village Council, and the Drug -Free Community Coalition. I was a representative on
the Village Council from 2008 to 2014, and one of the items on the agenda that I brought up
was notice to residents in reference to everyone knowing what's happening in terms of Planning
& Zoning issues. So we have to make sure that every year, the Village Council sent in a notice
to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office to ensure that we knew what was taking
place. So my question in reference to PH3 is whether or not the Village Council was made
aware of that item. The second question is, when you go to Appendix "A, " which I've had to go
over since 2008, when you go down to area 3.4(b), "All properties located within the Village
Center will be reviewed by the Coordinated Review Committee. " Was that done in reference to
PH.3?
Vice Chair Russell: Which --? I'm sorry, could you say again? Did who review?
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: The Village Center. "All properties located within the Village Center
shall be co" -- "shall be reviewed by the Coordinated Review Board. " Coordinated Review
Board. And that's in item 3.4(b). My last item is in reference to visuals. I have had the
opportunity to live on both sides of the tier. I was born and raised in Coconut -- in West
Coconut Grove. Mr. and Mrs. Hattie A.E. Jackson moved here in the 1920s, so they were
pioneers. And I've had the opportunity to live on the other side of Coconut Grove, where that
wall is in place. If you go on Justison Street and Liber, you will see this house. I'm not sure
how many trees had to be removed for it. When you go over on Poinciana and Solana, there's
another development that was in place. And I'm going to pass these around for you to see them.
I didn't take a picture of the one on Anne Court, but what is happening is that even though the
guidelines are in place for the NCD -3 (Neighborhood Conservation District), there are many,
many loopholes, and those loopholes need to be rectified. Miami 21, in essence, was taken
from what is called the form -based Code, and that was put in place because of the previous
Code, which was the Ecudian [sic] Zoning Codes, which gave you too much broad involvement
for development. So by putting the NCD on top of that, that was to support our canopy, and
that's not taking place because of the loopholes.
City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, is there --
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: Now, what I am --
Chair Hardemon: -- a special item that you're speaking about?
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: PH3.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: And also West Coconut Grove, because when you go down Grand Avenue
and the residential properties in Coconut Grove, those have been taken aside, as well.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am --
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: Now, where I'm going with this -- I'm almost done.
Chair Hardemon: --I want you to know that your two minutes have expired.
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: I understand --
Chair Hardemon: The more that you --
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: -- but I needed to bring some education into the room a little bit.
Chair Hardemon: -- continue to speak, the more disrespectful you're being to the rest of the
people that want to speak for two minutes in the room.
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: I understand, Chairman. I understand.
Chair Hardemon: So I'm asking that you come to a very brief conclusion --
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: I am.
Chair Hardemon: -- so we can move on with the public comments.
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: So where I am in this whole scenario is West Coconut Grove does not have
the Coordinated Review Committee. So, again, let's determine whether or not those two items
were utilized in the Battersea area and in the Anne Court area, specifically. My vote is if they
have been -- if the guidelines that were in place were used, then my vote is for Battersea to go
on. If it was not, then we need to go back and readdress it. So, is my position clear?
Chair Hardemon: I think so.
Vice Chair Russell: If what was not used?
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: If the guidelines of the Coordinated Review Committee not being
addressed or made aware, then we need to pull back. If the Village Council was not made
aware, then we need to pullback.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: But I am for the development, if those pieces were done.
City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Samuels -Dixon: Is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Chair Hardemon: One of the things that I hate to do is turn the mike off on any speaker,
because I think that it can be -- I mean, it's not -- I wouldn't call it rude.
Commissioner Suarez: It's drastic.
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: It's drastic.
Chair Hardemon: Because it's rude, I think, to continue to talk beyond the time that you have
the floor; that's, in fact, rude. It's disrespectful to the Commission; it's disrespectful to the
Chair; it's disrespectful to the people here watching; it's disrespectful to everyone who's come
to -- and who followed the guidelines to get their time, because for every person that speaks
well beyond their time, someone says, "Well, hell, I should have spoken for five minutes, also, "
and they're probably right, but -- so, please, I know everyone who is here to speak, you're all
very smart people, you're very eloquent, and I know that you can deliver your message within
that time period. And also, I mean, I know that we have neighbors that are very -- they're very
creative. And so, I've seen them make presentations, when they have longer points, together.
And so, I admire that ingenuity, as well. You're recognized, sir.
John Snyder: Mr. Chairman, thank you. John Snyder, 3980 Hardie Avenue. I'm here about
PH 3. A Mr. Cejas, the Zoning administrator, sent a memo on the 20th to Vice Chairman
Russell, and copied all of you. I want to respond to his memo. His analysis of the situation
regarding PH.3, Battersea Woods, is very, very parallel to the attorney representing the
developers. He uses the definition of "a lot," which is in the Miami Municipal Code. There are
three definitions of "lots, "and he picked the one that's in Miami Municipal Code. The
definition for "building site in NCD -3" does not say, "a platted lot. " It says, "linear lots that
are aggregated to form a family residential site, including vacant lots. " He also cites the wrong
section of NCD -3, 3.6, regarding diminishment. The correct section is, "No building site in
existence prior to September 24, 2005 shall be diminished in size, except by warrant, subject
to"-- blah, blah, blah. Mr. Cejas relies on a tax card for 4384 Ingraham to support his
argument. In fact, the deed shows that there are five folios and five tax records for 4384. The
deed, dated the 20th day of October, 2015 -- this is the corrected deed -- shows that there were,
in fact, two lots, platted lots, and an un platted portion which comprised the site. In summary,
Section 3.6 specifies that other T-3 zoning regulations apply within NCD -3, but if any such
requirements conflict, NCD -3 requirements shall apply. We think that makes it clear. Thank
you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Do you have a copy of all that?
Mr. Snyder: I do.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, you're recognized.
Adele Myers: Yes. I'll be deferring to John Dolson, and then I'll speak. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
John Dolson: My name is John Dolson. I live at 4205 Lennox Drive, Coconut Grove, and I'm
speaking on behalf of --as a concerned citizen about PH.3. I promise to self-destruct at the
end of two minutes.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: He's creative.
Mr. Dolson: There have been clear and ambiguous violations -- the heat's on --
Commissioner Suarez: That's a first.
Mr. Dolson: -- of our City Code with this development, and I request of you tonight a plat. The
most important Code violation is NCD -3, Appendix "A, " Section 3.6(g)(1) and the
circumvention of the prescribed warrant requirement. Detailed wording is provided in the
documents I'm providing here. Specifically, the key points here, no building sites in existence
prior to September 24, 2005 shall be diminished in size, except by warrant. The specifics of the
City of Miami ordinance clearly show that this property, with a home built on it in 1910, has
been classified as a building site prior to September 25, 1946, and requires a warrant. It's
backed up by the following -- and this is very important for you -- Section 55-10 of the Miami
Code deals with permitting on un platted land, and divided into several parcels. Most
importantly, this is a key section, which was notably left out of arguments presented by Devin
Cejas in an interpretation dated September 20, 2016. Section "C" notes an exception to
building on un platted land, stated that any un platted land with a one family detached
dwelling described by deed, prior to September 25, 1946, is a building site. It requires a
warrant to sub -divide. We're submitting, under "Additional Property Information, " a record
showing the house was built in 1910. Parsing of words by the developers and Planning &
Zoning Board as to what constitutes a lot is irrelevant, given the specific wording in the Code.
I am not anti -development. I am pro Code enforcement. Enforcing the Code allows the City,
the neighbors, and the developers to create a better future. Circumvention of both the intent
and specifics of the Code has created a legal mess for the City and citizens. I'm
self-destructing now. Show the good governance we all want and know you seek to be known
for as Commissioners. Deny the plat. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your time.
Vice Chair Russell: Scaring the sergeant -at -arms, talking like that.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Ms. Myers: Good morning. My name is Adele Myers. My address is 4360 Lennox Drive. I am
also a faculty member at New World School of the Arts. I'm here commenting on PH.3. I
support responsible development that follows the Code. I sincerely appreciate the initial efforts
by the City to send the Battersea Development through the warrant process. For example, on
October 29, 2015, Assistant City Attorney Amanda Quirke replied to the City Attorney via
email, quote: "I spoke to Javier today. I reviewed this issue at length with Planning & Zoning
to see if we could get the same interpretation, but we could not. This is an un platted lot that
has had a house on it for more than 50 years. It is a building site, and no building site shall be
diminished in the NCD -3 without a warrant," end quote. And I'll submit these documents. The
next day, October 30, Assistant City Attorney Daniel Goldberg also replied, quote: 'Amanda
and I have discussed this extensively, and I agree with her assessment. They are trying to get
out of the NCD -3 warrant requirement for diminishing in size any building site in existence
since 2005. The un platted land has a house on it, so it is a building site. Furthermore, the
house is old enough that the un platted land was conveyed in that configuration prior to
City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
September 1946, so it falls into the platting exception. It is a building site, " end quote. 21 days
later, Daniel Goldberg completely reversed his decision, if I'm reading it correctly, after
emphatically stating that the developers were trying to, quote, "get out of the warrant process. "
The optics of this reversal Code does not look right from where I stand. Given the clear
message from the two Assistant City Attorneys in the initial decisions, and backed up by Section
55-10, Battersea Development to go through the warrant process, Commissioners. Please deny
the approval of the plat and send Battersea Development through the warrant process. Thank
you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, ma'am.
Larissa Ozols: Good morning. Larissa Ozols, 4191 Braganza Avenue. I'm hereto comment on
PH.3, and I am pro -development within the confines of the City of Miami Code.
Ms. Mendez: Ma'am, could you get closer to the microphone?
Ms. Ozols: I'll speak louder, too.
Ms. Mendez: Thank you.
Ms. Ozols: I'm requesting that you deny the plat. There have been clear violations of our
Code. 4384 Ingraham Highway, known as Battersea Woods, is, in fact, a lot, as are the
remnants not discussed here today. Folio Number 0142 -- 4129000210 is composed of numbers
that represent municipality, township, range, section, subdivision, and a parcel identifier that is
specific to 4384 Ingraham Highway. Those last four numbers of the folio are the parcel
number. The parcel has a fixed boundary, and it's got assigned numbers through which -- may
be identified and intended as a single building site, or used as a unit for transfer or ownership
for development. That's how the Miami Code describes a lot. The City and County GIS
(Geographic Information System) database have data points for lot size. 4384 Ingraham is
recorded as a 43,996 -square -foot lot. We know that there's property there. We know there was a
house there; and therefore, a deed. We know it was there prior to 1946 This folio has a City of
Miami building permit in force right now for a 5,181 -square -foot home. This folio number is
used as an identifier for development. Let's not mince words. This is a lot, it's an estate lot,
and there are many that surround it. Miami 21 recognizes and shelters these types of lots, not
to be diminished, except by warrant. Planning & Zoning is on record, attempting to enforce
that it's a lot that is of an estate size, and on October 2, 2015, protracted legal arguments
initiated by developer, want us to set aside logic and disregard the fact that 4384 Ingraham
Highway is a lot; we all know itis. I request you deny the plat on the grounds that subdividing
this lot required a warrantprocess. Thankyou.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized.
Glenn Patron: My name is Glenn Patron. I live at 4050 Ventura Avenue in Coconut Grove, and
I'm here as a citizen to comment on PH. 3, because I'm concerned about the City's lack of
observance of its own laws and its own regulations. But first, I want to thank you gentlemen,
because when I was here two weeks ago, I asked you to help me in my struggle for five months
to get an answer about the zoning violations of 4039 Ventura Avenue. The very next day, Mr.
Cejas' office called me, and they did confirm their errors in allowing the splitting of this lot
without a hearing. Okay, but today, we're here to talk about Battersea Woods, and I would like
to talk about the process of platting. According to Miami 21, Section 7, which I have a copy
here, Paragraph 2 says: "An appeal of a zoning interpretation, if sought, should be de novo
and presented to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. The appeal should be filed at the
Hearing Board's Office. " Perhaps you can help me again in showing me where in the provision
of this Code that there's provision for the City Attorney to intervene. In fact, on the 20 pages
City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
that deal with the permitting process, decisions, appeals, et cetera, there's barely any reference
to the Office of CityAttorney. I strongly believe there's been a denial of process, as a result of
the CityAttorney's overruling the Zoning administrator's decision. I mean, would you
gentlemen want a restaurant to be allowed to sell food to the public if they hadn't gone through
the permitting and inspection process, just because the City Attorney says, "That's okay, go
ahead, no problem "? Of course not. The developer, the Zoning Department and the City
Attorney must abide by the rules. If Johnny Cochran was here today, he would say, "If they do
not abide, then you must deny." Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am.
Debbie Dolson: Okay. My name is Debbie Dolson. I'm here to speak about PH.3. My address
is 4205 Lennox Drive, in Coconut Grove. There have been many clear violations and
irregularities regarding the plat process of Battersea Woods. The developers expressed that
they went through the entire process and didn't know that the warrant requirement was in force
until September 11, 2015. This requirement is clearly stated in the NCD -3 Code, Appendix "A, "
3.6(g)(1). I've submitted three documents showing the developer's knowledge of the NCD -3
designation; a copy of the Miami -Dade T -Plat application, filled out by the developer; a screen
show -up of the City of Miami GIS tool, listing this property as NCD -3; and the original T -Plat,
dated March 13, 2014. In an email, on record, dated October 7, 2015, Mr. Gus De Ribeaux, a
real estate attorney and co-founder of Palmcorp, stated, quote, "Not knowing much about the
warrant process, we were unable to address the City's requirement at that meeting, " end quote.
Palmcorp's attorney, Javier Vazquez, practices zoning and land use law. It's obvious that they
know these codes, and it's hard to believe that with these credentials, the legal team allowed
Palmcorp to take this risk, especially after executing a hold harmless agreement on June 9,
2015. IfI build an illegal addition onto my house and the Code Enforcement tells me I have to
tear it down, I can't use the excuse, "I didn't know about this code. " Battersea Woods is a clear
case of "Don't ask permission ahead of time; ask for forgiveness later. " This is a business
strategy that cannot be rewarded. Lest you think I'm an angry neighbor or against
development, I assure you, I am not. When the Code is enforced, everyone wins. The City
Attorney's created a serious breach that affects not only Coconut Grove, but the City of Miami
as a whole. Mr. Cejas has now issued an interpretation in defense of his questionable earlier
decision to award the warrant process for Battersea Woods. This interpretation is a result of the
City Attorney's activities, which are now under investigation. Serious questions remain. I urge
you to deny the plat for Battersea Woods as our elected Commissioners, and represent honest
and transparent governance in our City. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized.
Gale Patron: My name is Gale Patron. Ilive at 4050 Ventura Avenue, in the Grove. I'm also
here as a voting citizen, concerned about violations through PH.3. We're talking about multiple
violations of the City Code with the development of Battersea Woods. I please -- plead with you
to please deny the plat for Battersea Woods. I also ask for a moratorium on the issuance of all
plats for the 20 or more properties that are currently waiting for approval and are in dispute
through the outcry of the residents of Coconut Grove. Why? We have the laws in place to
govern against rampant and irresponsible development in our unique area of Miami. Sadly, the
laws are not being enforced. Developers, including Palmcorp, make calculated decisions,
based on the probability that they can get a property through the permit process by whatever
means necessary. This is risk assessment taken by the developers, who are clever and strategic.
These particular developers are pros at working the system. It was spelled out to Palmcorp in
the T -Plat letter of September]], 2015, that they must get a warrant and their lot sizes were too
small; however, they chose to proceed without a permit in building, and they assumed the risk
by signing a hold harmless with the City, stipulated in Section 55-10 of the Miami Code. This
is not right. This isn't moral. It's greed on both sides. And what is worse is the news that this
City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
company has just received an opinion from Zoning to proceed without a warrant. Somebody
caved through manipulation. We, the voting public, only ask that our laws are enforced. I'm
asking you to put a moratorium on T -Plats and permitting until there is an independent
investigation of all the departments and individuals involved in the Battersea Woods fiasco, as
well as the other properties in dispute in NCD -3. Thank you, gentlemen.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Applause.
Chair Hardemon: So we don't allow clapping in the City chambers. It is disruptive. We have
to wait for everyone to calm down. We have many eloquent speakers, not on the dais, but in the
public, that would gain the support of a clap; however, it's just much more efficient if we show
our support by raising our hands and shining our --and wigging our fingers. I think they
called these spirit fingers back in the day. I wasn't a --
Commissioner Suarez: Jazz hands.
Chair Hardemon: -- cheerleader. Jazz fingers?
Vice Chair Russell: Jazz hands or something.
Chair Hardemon: Jazz hands? Okay. So show your jazz hands when you see -- when you have
support for someone, but please do not clap. Thank you so much. You're recognized, ma'am.
Anne Cote: Morning. My name is Anne Cote. I live at 4050 Battersea Road, and I'm here
regarding PH.3. Battersea Woods is a building site, because it had a house on it previous to
1946, and the un platted land had been conveyed as such by the platting exception, as per
Section 55-10(c) of the Miami Code. I'm submitting several pictures of this house from the
early 1950s, as well as a page from the 1940 US (United States) Census, showing the Hobbs
Family residence at 43 Ingraham Highway -- 4384 Ingraham Highway -- as further evidence
that this lot is a building site. Victoria Mendez knew about this exception from her early days
as an Assistant City Attorney, and I quote from her bio: "She rose through the ranks as a
supervisor and then Deputy City Attorney, focusing primarily on land use, zoning, platting,
building, Code enforcement. " She should know better. Multiple zoning administrators, and not
one, but two of her Assistant City Attorneys spelled out in emails that we have read into the
record that this exception is applicable specifically to Battersea Woods, in case she had
forgotten about that section of the Code. She was told exactly what the developers were trying
to do. They were trying to, quote, "to get around the Code to avoid the warrant, " unquote. It is
not a matter of a, quote, "difference of opinion, " unquote. It is a matter of her refusal to take
"no "for an answer. With all of this knowledge, what did the City Attorney do? Did she say to
her colleague, Javier Vazquez, "Javier, I've tried to help, and I may agree with your argument,
but you have to appeal to the PZAB"? No. Instead, it appears she continued her private
conversations with Mr. Vazquez and City employees until it seems she got the decision she was
looking for. This appears at the surface to have been handled at best improperly. This entire
process has been totally opaque, and transparency is the bedrock of a functioning democracy.
You cannot allow a single appointee, whose job it is to represent the citizens of this City and the
Commission, to manipulate the law for the special interest of a particular individual. A vote
today to approve this plat would be a vote that says you condone this kind of activity, but you
have a choice. You have a choice to make a stand that this kind of behavior has no place in a
fair and functioning government. Deny the plat and send it back to the warrant process, where
it belongs. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir, you're recognized.
City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Stewart Brown: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Stewart Brown, and I live at 4360
Ingraham Highway. I'm an abutting neighbor of Battersea Woods, and I'm here to talk about
PH.3. I must admit to you all that I do not like the cookie cutter homes planned for Battersea
Woods, or the fact that their volume consumes one view. However, if this were done following
the letter of the law, I would have to accept it. My wife and I have both worked in development
in the past, and we understand the merits of developing responsibly, ethically, and following the
law. The suspect circumstances under which Palmcorp received their approvals have been laid
out before you today, and are no less disappointing than the first time Johannah and I learned
of them. Palmcorp has violated the warrant process. The frontages of their lots are too narrow
under the Code, and the City Attorney has denied the citizens due process by not channeling the
issue through the PZAB. This due process is one of the bedrocks of our democracy. Now we
find out that the City continues to walk back its original opinion that a warrant is required. It's
acting against restrictions in the Code that are in place to protect and preserve the character of
the Grove. This, in a manner that reinforces what I believe many citizens feel about our local
government, that the use of influence and back -channeling calls the shots. I suspect that Mr.
Cejas' interpretation -- or should I say his most recent interpretation -- will not be the last
chapter of this story. As an abutting neighbor, we feel that we have standing in this case to
pursue an outcome that will protect of our neighborhood, the value of our real property, and the
integrity of our laws. We will appeal the decision and continue to investigate why the City is
ignoring its own Code and reversing its own opinions to appease a developer and its lobbyists.
You are all men who have dedicated your lives to serving the citizens of this City. You're the
standard bearers for our society through your actions and the ideals that you hold. The suspect
actions that have allowed Battersea Woods to get as far as it has is not congruent with those
ideals. Deny the plat. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, ma'am.
Johannah Brown: Hi again. My name is Johannah Brown, and I live at 4360 Ingraham
Highway. I'm an abutting neighbor, and I'm not asking for extra time today. I'm here to
comment on PH. 3. Before I begin, I just want to thank each one of you for the time you've
given mein the past meetings and today to participate in this process. The choices we make
are not defined by our character; instead, our character is defined by the choices we make.
The item you have before you today may have started as a Coconut Grove issue, but it is now
much more than that. This is now a fairness issue, a due process issue. Throughout this entire
process, the only thing we have ever really wanted was the rules to apply equally to everyone.
The City Attorney appears to have ignored every expert around her who advised her correctly,
and based on the emails that are now part of the record, there appears to have been private
conversations that the public has not been privy to that affected the outcome of this matter, and
as such, may have violated sunshine laws. It is abundantly clear that rules and Codes have
been violated. The warrant process wasn't followed, the lot sizes are too small, and they never
appealed their disagreement with the Zoning administrator to the PZAB. It's all on the record.
You all have a choice today. You can choose to make right the wrongs that have been made up
until this point, or you can choose to sweep it under the rug for the sake of political expediency.
I think you owe it to your constituents and all the citizens of the City to show that you are men
of character. You owe it to the builder in Little Havana who has to go back and forth between
the City and projects every day, because he has to fix things that aren't up to Code. You owe it
to the small business owner in Overtown whose restaurant opening is delayed because it isn't up
to Code. You owe it to all the citizens in the City of Miami, working hard every day, and
following the rules. You owe it to everyone to show that you believe in the rule of law that no
one is above the law, including the silver-tongued, deep pocketed, and well-connected. Some
of you here on the dais are just starting your political careers, and we know that you won't be
Commissioners forever. Today you have areal opportunity to cement your legacies as men of
good character who stood up for what is right. Do the right thing. Deny this plat and send it
City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
back to the warrant process, where it belongs. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Welcome back.
Renescha Coats: Hi. My name is Renescha Coats. I stay at 3420 Hibiscus Street, Apartment
1, in the NCD -2, I guess. I just want to say that everybody that's here for PH.3 and all this stuff
like that, it's just really frustrating, because every time you come here, they're saying the same
thing, over and over again. I have someone who lives right across the street from the
development. She's a close friend of mine, and I asked her, I said, "Well, does the value of your
house go up or down because of this?" She says, "The value goes up. " So ifshe wants to sell
her house, she's going to get paid. So all of you homeowners that are upset about people
developing in your area, it's ridiculous to me. People are developing in my area where people
are renting, and people cannot afford to stay there. They're pushing us out. These people are
not being pushed out by these developers. Nothing is happening to you guys because these
people are developing. The only thing that's happening is people that can't afford to live in a
$2 million house, like myself, are being pushed out. People who are renting, people who have
normal jobs are being pushed out, but you guys are fighting these developers for building $2
million houses, it doesn't make any sense. The people that move into your neighborhood are
going to look just like you. The people that move into my neighborhood look nothing like me;
they look nothing like me. And then, you guys are talking about the laws and things like that.
The laws are very flawed, because on Charles Avenue, it's supposed to be a historic street. And
yesterday, I was in Commissioner's office, and I asked Anthony -- he was showing me a picture
of how the houses on Charles were supposed to be built. So I said, "Anthony, there's two boxes
on Charles Avenue. There's two boxes, and they don't look anything like these pictures. " He
says, "Well, if a person wants to build something else, they can go through a process, and then
it can be" -- "and then they can change it, and it could be approved. " And I'm saying, "So why
is it a law?" The problem is not with these developers; it's with our laws. They're flawed.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, sir.
Richard Cote: Yes. My name is Richard Cote. Ilive at 4050 Battersea Road. I directly abut
the Battersea Woods Project. I'm here to speak about PH.3 and voice my strong opposition,
and I would like the Commission to deny the plat. I began this in December of 2014. I have
provided all of you Commissioners and the Mayor with a record of my correspondence with the
City Zoning Commission at that time. At that time, I inquired about the intent to -- of the
developers to put five homes onto this existing property that previously had had a single home.
I should point out that, in reality, we're talking about five homes, but they have put -- they are
intending to put seven homes on these properties. It's simply that two of the homes that have
already been put up are in Coral Gables, and so they aren't under your direct purview. So that
property, that single property is not to be divided into five homes; it actually is into seven
homes is the plan of the developers. At the time that I made my objection in 2014, I voiced my
strong opposition to this. I also voiced my strong opposition to the removal of some
magnificent and very old trees that were on the property at that time; those trees have since
been removed. I did get a response from Mr. Cejas, and I will read you part of the response, in
that, "You are correct with regards to the intent. Five single-family homes are proposed to be
built, and back in August, the Zoning plans processor reviewing those building permit
applications denied the application, because it did not meet the Zoning technical aspects. In
addition, Public Works also denied the application, and is requiring a re plat of the existing
plat. " This is in direct contradiction to the most recent September 2016 opinion given by the
same person, and I suggest that since that time, a series of untoward events have occurred that
have directly led to a circumvention of the process. I also find the actions of the City Attorney,
Victoria Mendez, highly inappropriate and very suspect in this, having been -- having knowing
the law, having been -- having had two previous denials of this circumvention of the warrant
process; nevertheless, persisted in this process in order to get this done without the warrant
City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
process, extremely inappropriate. I would also have to mention that l find her characterization
Chair Hardemon: Sir, your time is expired.
Mr. Cote: -- of Mr. Russell --
Chair Hardemon: Sir, sir --
Mr. Cote: -- to be very inappropriate.
Chair Hardemon: -- thank you very much. I appreciate your time. You're recognized, sir.
Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I'm going to speak to three separate items
in two minutes.
Commissioner Suarez: Wow.
Commissioner Gort: That's a first.
Mr. Cruz: Regarding RE. 9, which I believe has been withdrawn -- and that's good -- but
towards the topic in general, I want to point out a very important concept that was not
mentioned during the discussion earlier: due process. Specifically, PZ items are quasi-judicial.
As such, I highly agree and recommend with the hybrid system that Ms. Solares recommended.
Example: The Mercy Hospital spot zoning. When different members of this Commission
approved an illegal spot zoning, it was through the actions of the public who were able to set a
record at City Commission that they were able to take it to court and defeat an illegal spot
zoning. To save time, Chairman Hardemon, I recommend highly that shade meetings be
scheduled on non -Commission meeting days. I have sat here for hour after hour, waiting for
shade meetings to end. I'm glad to see Commissioner Gort agrees with me. Regarding RE.5,
I'm glad to hear that was continued. The MPA (Miami Parking Authority) has gone rogue.
They've been rogue for many years. I hope that if it comes back, they're only charging on
weekends, if at all. I was in the audience on our April 22, 2004, when then -Commissioner
Arthur Teele promised the public that the $169 million tax subsidy would be to allow free
parking for Midtown. Midtown parking is far from free. It's run by the MPA, and the MPA has
been instructed to pull 'pay to park" signs all around town; signs that they put in without
proper authorization from the City Manager's Office. The signs have not been pulled. Lastly,
for PH. 3, the intent is clear. It gives you legal basis to do the right thing. And I want to make
all parties, especially the people in the Grove, aware. Section 2.2.2 of Miami 21: "Where the
requirements of this Miami 21 Code vary with the applicable requirements of any law, statute,
rule, regulation, ordinance or Code, the most restrictive, or that imposing the higher standard,
shall govern. " Write that down. 2.2.2. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Sir, you're recognized.
Fabio Lannelli: Good morning. My name is Fabio Lannelli. I live at 3404 Poinciana Avenue.
I'm hereto discuss my opposition to PK3. I have been a long-term Grove resident. I've --
myself have been through permitting processes on several jobs that are houses, and the -- over
the last couple of years, we've noticed the -- definitely, the decline in consistency with respect
to the amount of overdevelopment in the Grove. The subdivision of lots has definitely been a
serious issue. We've noticed it, and the primary concern with respect to NCD -3, I think, is the
similarity of all the properties that are being built, and also the destruction of the tree canopy
in the Grove, which I think is more of an issue than anything else. Even the City of Coral
Gables right now is going through a whole process of redoing their urban planning to add tree
City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
canopy, and not palm trees and actually large specimen trees, and I think that is one of the
leading characters that make the Grove what it is today, and I think that the City Commission
should definitely consider this going forward. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Yes, ma'am, you're recognized.
Katrinna Morris: I'm Katrinna Morris. Ilive at 4130 Lybyer Avenue, in Coconut Grove, and I
want to speak to the woman with PH.2 about the residents, regarding PH. 3. It's the same
problem. It's the same developers coming in. My house is much -- I know there's a $2 million
house that went up two doors down from me. It's a big box, right? And it has been for sale for
a year. It has been finished for a year. No one wants it. There is something more important
than money and more important than property values, and that is quality of life, and that is why
I live in the Grove. I live in the Grove because there are big, beautiful trees. It's like five
degrees cooler than anywhere else. It's --I walk every morning, I see my neighbors, I say hello
to my neighbors. It's a beautiful community, and it's -- the character of the Grove, which I
believe NCD -3 is trying to preserve, is why these developers are coming in. People want to buy
into the Grove. They don't --I don't believe they want these big homes that are oversized for
their lots. I don't believe they want the -- I just --I believe they're destroying the actual quality
of life in the Grove that makes it so special, and I believe it's the same issue, and I believe that
we're all on the same side and that we support --just not over -developing and developing with a
conscience, and developing with a view of what makes it so nice to live here. That's --
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, ma'am.
Cindy Snyder: Hi. My name is Cindy Snyder, and I live at 3980 Hardie Road. My husband
and I and many other people choose to live in Coconut Grove because of the beautiful trees. I
agree with Katrinna. I agree with a lot of the other people who have spoken to this. Without
the tree canopy, Miami would not be habitable for us and many others. The canopy protects
our skins and our eyes from excessive light and heat exposure. Many visitors to Miami also
seek out the Grove. It is a beautiful place, mainly because of its lush foliage, which cannot
exist without the pervasive tree canopy. If the canopy goes, desert results. The Miami 21 Code,
Appendix "A, "Neighborhood Conservation District is an excellent code. It takes into
consideration the nature of humans who might like to actually live here; not just those thinking
they will make a quick profit here on huge houses crowded onto tiny lots, for example; investors
seeking online flip deals, ultimately leaving locals to cope with negative impacts. The NCD
Conservation District is fairly con -- Code, rather -- is fairly concise; maybe 10 pages. The
section pertaining to single-family residential district is Section 3.6, and states on page A17 --
the two opening paragraphs clam the intent of the law. They read as follows: "The
single-family residential district is intended to protect the low density residential and dominant
tree canopy characteristics of Coconut Grove, and prevent the intrusion of additional density
uses and height. All T-3 single-family residential zoning regulations shall apply within the
Coconut Grove NCD -3, a single-family residential district, hereafter referred to as NCD -3,
except as modified below. If any such requirements conflict, NCD -3 requirements shall apply. "
That's what it says in the first two paragraphs of the Code. These three sentences spell out the
intent of the Code, and they also specify what is to be done when requirements conflict. If any
such requirements conflict, the NCD -3 requirements shall apply. Like everyone else here, I
implore you to deny this plat. Furthermore, I have additional signatures on petitions to add to
the file of already quite a few petitions.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Ms. Snyder: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Appreciate your time. You're recognized, ma'am.
City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Berlinda Faye Dixon: Hi, good morning. My name is Berlinda Faye Dixon. I live in
Overtown, 1128 Northwest 7th Avenue, Apartment 401, 33136. I am a victim of slumlords in
the City of Miami, which was at 1720 Northwest 1st Place, Apartment 2. One of the things that
I implore you guys to do, please, we voted you in. We have slum and blight throughout our
entire County. It has not been addressed. Nuisance Abatement laws have been ignored. I
followed the law and I got screwed and fell through the cracks, and became homeless. So I had
to start a business so nobody else falls through the cracks. The young lady who was up here
speaking about the Coconut Grove properties, Friday, I was getting a call that the balcony was
collapsed and I'm sending pictures to Commissioner Russell and his aide, and then the shoddy
work that the people want to do real quick. You know, our low-income community is being
taken advantage of. And I'm poor. My income is $1,484 a month, and my medications to take
me -- take care of me and my spinal cord injury so I can keep going are $400 a month. I thank
God for the fire that I had, because I was placed -- my federal rights were violated in our
County and City, via the Homeless Trust, okay? And I'm also an ADA (Americans with
Disabilities) advocate. So now, with that information, now I pay 30 percent, 436. So that's 800
and something dollars. So I have $500 to live on for the rest of the month. Let's not forget my
Medicare. So when you're talking about poor people, as a retired nurse, humanitarian activist
my whole entire life, I am begging you, begging all of you. The people who receive Social
Security at 720 to 800, 1, 000, have no place to live and are becoming homeless, because we
have allowed the developers to use every single loophole they can, realtor after realtor, buyer
after buyer, slumlord building after slumlord building, and something has got to stop. Where is
the accountability? I applaud you. Please, do not forget about us low-income people, okay?
As a retired nurse of 18 years and having an accident, my life changed. Yours can, too, when
you leave this place, and you'll cash out your 401(k), like I did. So while you spend your money
on the backs of poor people, you better get with it, because I'm coming for all of you who don't
know what accountability is, because you will not rape and keep stepping on the poor people;
you will not, for the sake of money. Take your money someplace else.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Ms. Dixon: Thank you.
Unidentified Speaker: Amen.
Chair Hardemon: Sir, you're recognized.
Ricky Trinidad: My name is Ricky Trinidad. My address is 3175 Elizabeth, Coconut Grove,
Florida 33133. I'm here in favor of consent agenda item number 1, and this is regarding my
new building. I'm the developer/owner for Villas Beny More, in Little Havana, 850 Southwest
14th Avenue. The City required that we deed a portion of the propertyfor utilities that are
being connected right now, water and sewer utilities. And we consented to that as part of the
requirement for our building permit, so we're in favor of deeding that portion of the property
over. I believe this is very common practice. I also want to mention that we do have tenants
that are moving in, in November. We're happy to develop such a project that commemorates the
late Beny More. It -- there was a dilapidated building formerly on that property, and we
replaced it with a beautiful structure called Villas Beny More that is market rate units, and it's
an asset and an enhancement to the community, and we appreciate your favor.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Trinidad: Thank you.
Renita Holmes: Good morning, gentlemen. I'm Madam Renita Holmes, executive director of
Wave of Women in Public Housing, Education, Finance and Development. Wow, I'm a little bit
City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
late, but glad to be here for -- at least of an opportunity, because on my way here to speak in
behalf of those who are extremely low income, disabled and living in challenged communities
within multiple districts, I received two calls. Commissioner -- through the Chair -- Russell,
some of them came from the building which I had been servicing until another recent injury in
which my car, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was shot out, and a young man, whose mother I had just
moved into Overtown, who basically traveled the same route I did when I was gentrified as a
result of violence, retaliation, intimidation from Liberty City, but I don't see myself in separate
neighborhoods. I still answer the call, because, instinctively, that's what we do as women and
mothers. But it's very difficult as women and mothers to speak, particularly two minutes, but
there are several items that directly affect us. So when I got that call, all of that just got lost,
because I know that I've been watching at home, irregardless, attached to my asthma tank,
because, believe it or not, I'm a person with disability, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I don't believe
how no one could really try to at least participate in what is the opportunity to step to this
microphone. You know, it's not reasonable, to me, as it is to the average person, but with every
breath, my voice makes a difference, even -- and this plays over. My children see and those
people in those building have seen me there and I've taken their call. And the call was to say
that, in spite of all this conversation and efforts that I know some of you have specifically made
in campaign and initiative, there is a family, a working father who has traveled the same spot,
who has avoided violence. He is a -- they are survivors of other incidents I won't get into;
that's why I don't want to give you their direct names. And so, they're looking for a place to
stay. They're persons with disability, they're children with disabilities, particular those that
have -- start all over again as a result of the asbestos in this building. You saw the building on
there. And so, I'm not a person that does without details, and I think that's what annoys people,
because Ilook at the facts. Here's the fact, though, and here's the reality: I don't know where
I'm going to put them. I already have couples living on my floor and sleeping in my bed, with
the assumption. I also have to make sure they breathe. I want to share my asthma machine
with them, but then I can't keep them too long, because my lease says that I can't have guests,
because Ilive in extremely low-income building. I just want to say, in regards to RE. 4, RE.5
and changing the boundaries, right next to Wynwood, there are a bunch of families that are
already extremely low and persons with disability. We have already a deficit. In Discussion. ],
you're going to be talking about that. We're in a state of emergency, so that's what I want to
hear. I've got bodies dropping everywhere in my neighborhood, and four -block radius, and so
there are some that I can't move, even if there happens to be a shade tree of a transition family
moves out, because everybody's traumatized. We're in a state of emergency. I hear about low
income and I hear about affordable housing, but we in extremely low income can't afford to
give up any more children, nor do we have the accommodations, nor are we even allowed
through ministry to do so.
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes --
Ms. Holmes: I'm -- in closing, in closing, in comparison, let me tell you something. I've beer,
serving and haven't had one iota of resources to do so; it's been my own funding. I think that
we need to look at what's not comprehensive. I think when we look in these discussions and
with these changing of boundaries that extremely -- across the street, there are those of
extremely low income who have nowhere else to go. Now, I appreciate you listening, and I
don't want to be rude, but let me tell you what starts violence.
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes --
Ms. Holmes: When my children are hungry and they're not safe, and there's nowhere else to go.
Give me a choice today. Give me an answer, or at least acknowledge that you see that, because
I can have no peace until my children have a safe place to stay.
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes, thank you very much for your time.
City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Holmes: Thank you very much. I want that answer. Don't just use my name in vain. I got
no (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes, Madam Holmes --
Ms. Holmes: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes, Madam Holmes, you're out of order.
Ms. Holmes: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes, you're out of order. Welcome back, ma'am.
Cathy Parks: Hi. Cathy Parks, 4035 Battersea Road. That's a tough act to follow. Oh, at
first, I was against Battersea Woods, and now, I'm for it. They're 10,000 -square -foot lots.
These guys have worked to try to do things right, better than most developers in this City.
They've worked hard. We allowed it. I'm not really interested in the back history of what the
previous Administration has done or not done; that's for you guys to figure out, because West
Grove is falling apart. It's being wiped out. I feel like we're in the pre -World War H era of
Hitler. It's bothering me. I don't sleep at night. It disgusts me that we selfishly are worried
about $2 million properties, and we're letting historical properties be mowed down. No one
cares. Developers owning lots, owning homes, plowing them down, letting them go by neglect
till they get plowed down. I have documents properties. I've been in -- I was in a house
yesterday. I brought it to Ken's office. It's disgusting. To concern ourselves with $2 million
homes --and everybody's hereto make money. I don't think there's anybody up here doesn't
want to make money; that's what everybody's in business for. It's all right, that's American way.
There's other properties -- Anne Court and Battersea and in Matheson -- those really violate
everything that we stand for in the Miami 21. If we're going to do these -- if we're going to
knock down Battersea Woods, which was my original feeling, if we're going to knock them
down, then I want all the boxes in West Grove knocked down on the historical street that
Renescha Coats said. They should -- they need to go. The other way -- all the other homes that
are being -- violating the Miami 21 on Anne and Matheson and Anne and Barbarossa, they
need to go. It should be one for all and all for one; not just picking on one person, one group.
It's a problem that we have, and we either need to do it to everybody or we need to leave people
alone and fix going forward. We're going backwards, and we're spending a lot of time in the
chambers on one group ofpeople, but we're not doing anything for West Grove, and we all --
you guys know we have a serious problem. We're going to have a lot of homeless people. And
Mr. Hardemon, I know you have your issues, too, in your area. We don't have anywhere to put
people and we're going to have a lot of homeless people, and I'm going to ask Battersea Woods
if I can put them in their buildings that are across the street from my house. I just might move
them there --
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Ms. Parks: -- because I don't know what else to do with them, and it's hurting me every day
that we have people that have no place to go.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Ms. Parks: And we need to think about things a little bit differently. It's really embarrassing
and selfish.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, ma'am. Sir, you are recognized. Name and address for the
City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
record, please.
Timothy Brantley: My name is Timothy Brantley, 4090 Matheson Avenue, Miami, Florida. I
live right on Merrie Christmas Park. And to the women who spoke earlier, man, I don't know if
we've lost our empathy or our compassion to those who can't afford it in the Grove and have
lost their incomes, and are struggling. God bless you guys. I don't know. We have to look at
ourselves as a society again. In the South Grove, it sounds ridiculous to fight for houses,
because they're not being compliant with codes, a $2 million house going up. I was born there.
My parents were here, World War H. There was no roads cut in then. It was called Coconut
Grove. I think in 20 years, on a Google satellite map, it's going to be called "Coconut Roof. " I
don't think there's going to be trees around anymore. That's just part of the problem. The other
part of the problem is when you're born here and you go to school, the local schools, in Ponce
and Gables and Carver with the people raised in the South Grove, they're a part of who you
are. This is our family. We're going to fight for it. I know there's Code violations allover the
Grove, because one of the Code Enforcement inspectors knew me from high school and I helped
him with a health issue. And I said, "How are they getting around the codes?" And he said,
"They're getting two signatures. " And I said, "That's it?" He said, "Yeah, yeah, two signatures.
I'll tell you, because we're friends. " There is a huge disconnect going on. Last night, I knocked
door to door. My father was a good old boy, a farmer from Georgia originally, and he taught
me the acronym, "Keep it simple, stupid. " So I knocked on doors and I started talking to
people. They're so enraged, they don't know what to do. They know the codes are being
broken, they know the problems, and -- but they say, "No one's listening to us anymore. " I'll
wrap this up quickly. When we had problems with Merrie Christmas Park, we opened up a
lawsuit, Ken Russell, myself, a lady -- my neighbor across the street, and that, I believe, is the
only reason -- Ken fought like crazy to get the park done and done the right way, because there
was so many lies being pulled on the public. They were trying to put in equipment, a dog park,
no notifications on anything. That's the game that's being played. I don't know what I can do
to help, except for get up here and plead that you start listening to the taxpayers that are
paying for you to represent them. I also request the properties on Barbarossa and Anne Court,
and Barbarossa and Matheson that the books be opened up. I'm making a request that we look
at everything that's gone on with coding inspectors and the developers that are involved so we
can start taking some corrective action for this place, and make it a better place, not Coconut
Grove [sic/. And I thank you for the dance. If we can get one, anew dance that keeps it
Coconut Grove and not -- instead of Coconut Roof, that would be great.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Mr. Brantley: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Sir, you're recognized.
Gilbert Contreras: Good morning. Gilbert Contreras, 141 Almeria. I'm here to speak on item
CA.1, and I'm hereto request --or that the board approve it. This is a right-of-way dedication
for the construction of a multi family building, an eight -unit building at 135 Southwest 6th
Avenue. This is an empty lot right now. The right-of-way dedication is something that's
required by Public Works, and the building permit is being held up or is waiting for this
approval before it can go forward. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, ma'am.
Brenda Betancourt: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: But it's still public comment. You can be heard.
City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Betancourt: I guess. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I don't know how to
start. I think -- so many concerns that we have. As a community activist for Little Havana,
Overtown, Coconut Grove and all those target areas that we have in the County, I'm really
concerned, and I think one of my biggest concern that I have right now is the Code
Enforcement that we have. Maybe it's not even the Code Enforcement director or the staff, but
maybe the way it's -- have been set or the things that has been done for the past 20, 30 years. I
think the Code Enforcement need to be a little bit -- or Code compliance. Somebody correct me
the other day. It's Code compliance; it's not Code Enforcement. It doesn't work, anyways. The
name might be fancy, but it doesn't work. If we have enforcement policies, are we are doing
enough to get it done? I know we are short in people, and sometimes, I just want to understand.
I'm apart of the Code Enforcement Committee, and I'm very proud to be there. We try to listen
to our citizens, and I think that's something that, unfortunately, sometimes we feel you guys are
not doing. We have you in therefor our benefit, for you guys to guide us, for you guys to
enforce the law. What happened with Code Enforcement is not being done or either for a lack
ofpersonnel, or who follow up. That's one of my biggest issues that I have in the Code
Enforcement Committee right now. What happen when somebody we assign and say, "You has
to do something in 24 hours"? We comeback the next meeting, and who is going to report to us
that actually happened? So a lot of these problems that we have with homeless
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) properties, it's part of our fault, because we are not doing enough in the
Code Enforcement. Regardless what they need -- that they might need my people, they might
need to hire more people, what as a citizen we can do? I have Jose Marti Park for over five
months with a hole under a basket in the basketball court. Where the kids are going to go play?
We talk about that we have to keep them in a place that is healthy for them. Where are they
going to go? And you have the security person saying, "Hey, no, you can't play in the
basketball court next door next to it, because you have a hole that it's been sitting therefor six
months. " We did the food giveaway with Debbie Richardson. The hole was there. It's still
there. I got a call yesterday at 7 p.m. from the coach. He say, "Brenda, we cannot play. I have
15 kids want to play. " So, please --
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am.
Ms. Betancourt: -- you guys stop with doing things because the political sides. Try to think
about the people.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Seeing that there is no other --
Williams Armbrister: Of course, there is. My name is Williams Armbrister. I reside at 3260
Thomas Avenue; second generation advocate for the people in this community. And since we
only have two minutes on the item, the items I'll be addressing are PH 3, PH.2, RE.9, PZ 1,
PZ. 3, PZ. 4, PZ. 5, PZ. 6, and PZ. 9.
Chair Hardemon: The PZ items will be heard -- the public comment for that time is in the
afternoon. Let's stop his time, please. The public comment section for that time is in the
afternoon, so I wouldn't suggest that you spend your time addressing the PZ items. However,
the other items feel free to address.
Mr. Armbrister: So can I address all these items this afternoon?
Chair Hardemon: What I'm saying is that you can address -- if you want to stay till the
afternoon and address the PZ items, you can. If you want to make all your presentation in these
two minutes, you can do that, also. But if you're going to do both -- stay in the afternoon and
be here now -- I would suggest that you use your time on the regular agenda items.
Mr. Armbrister: So I can present these items this afternoon in their totality?
City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: The PZ items, yes.
Mr. Armbrister: Only; not the PH? Okay.
Chair Hardemon: I would suggest doing your --
Mr. Armbrister: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: --hear me out, Mr. Armbrister.
Mr. Armbrister: PH --
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Armbrister, can I--?
Mr. Armbrister: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: If you want to do your PH items, for instance --
Mr. Armbrister: I'm not hearing you. You're not using the mike or it's not turned up.
Chair Hardemon: I'm doing the best that I can.
Mr. Armbrister: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: If you want to do the PH items, the RE items, FR items, any of those items,
now is your time to address it.
Mr. Armbrister: Very good. And on the PH.3 --
Chair Hardemon: And Mr. Clerk, can you clock his two minutes?
Mr. Armbrister: -- PH.2 and RE.9, two minutes for each one. I will try to be less than five,
okay? On the PH. 3, dealing with Coconut Grove, it -- we're losing our canopy. It helps with
the air that we breathe and with -- but the re platting of our community means that we have to
lose our canopy in order to provide what developers want. You are our elected lobbyists. So
when the lobbyists come to you, I recommend that you hear what they have to say, but not listen
to them. On PA.2 [sic], your format, this new format is not working for the people at all,
because if this is the format that you'd like to use, I suggest that you have the presentation for
these items at the time that the public can address them immediately and the public can see how
you are voting, in line with the presentation that you've gotten, both from the developers, the
lobbyists and the people. Under RE.9 --
Chair Hardemon: I believe RE.9 was withdrawn from the agenda.
Mr. Armbrister: -- was withdrawn. So the PH.2, PH.3, I'd like for you to consider the people,
what their needs are. Remember, you're not just an elected official; you are a lobbyist for the
people. So when we speak, we'd like to be heard and listened to and just hear what the
proposals are, but don't take them into consideration if they're going to interfere with our
quality of life herein the City. And I'm done with this until later this afternoon. I'll come back
and be happy to see you at that time.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Is there any other person? Seeing that there's no
other person here for public comment, I'm going to close the public comment section at this
time.
City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
CONSENT AGENDA
CA.1
RESOLUTION
16-01162
Department ofPublic
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
Works
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT TWELVE
(12) RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDS OF DEDICATION FOR THE PROPERTIES
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR
RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
RECORDATION OF SAID DEEDS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK
TO KEEP COPIES OF SAID DEEDS.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Russell and Suarez
R-16-0466
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item CA.],
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: The September 22, 2016 Miami City Commission meeting is back in session.
We were -- the next item that we had for -- oh, I'm sorry. Wait, let me -- yeah, the next item we
had for consideration would have been CA. 1 ?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Move it
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept CA.1. Any further
discussion on the item? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motionpasses.
CA.2
RESOLUTION
16-01166
Department of
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID
Procurement
RECEIVED JULY 13, 2016, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO.
609394, FROM TEMPTROLAIR CONDITIONING, INC., THE SOLE
RESPONSIVEAND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FORAIR CONDITIONING
REPAIRAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES, CITYWIDE, ON AN AS NEEDED
BASIS, FORAN INITIAL CONTRACT PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS, WITH
THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR
PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF
FUNDS FROM THE END USER DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF
NEED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE
Citv ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS AND
MODIFICATIONS TO SAID CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE.
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
CA.3
16-01155
Department of Police
R-16-0447
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BIDS
RECEIVED ON JUNE 1, 2016, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO.
615389, FROM ROBBIE'S FEED & SUPPLY, INC., (GROUP A) FOR THE
PROVISION OF POLICE HORSE FEED AND SUPPLEMENTS, AND ROYAL
CANIN U.S.A., INC., (GROUP B) FOR THE PROVISION OF DOG FOOD, THE
RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS ON A GROUP BY GROUP
BASIS PURSUANT TO THE BID SPECIFICATIONS, ON AN AS NEEDED
CONTRACTUAL BASIS, FORA PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS, WITH THE
OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEAR PERIODS;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT
TO THEAVAILABILITYOF FUNDSAND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE
TIME OF NEED; AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL SERVICE SUPPLIERS TO BE
ADDED TO THE CONTRACTS; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS,
INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CONTRACTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY
BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE.
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0448
CAA
RESOLUTION
16-00855
0 ce of the City
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
Attorney
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY TO AND ON BEHALF OF DONNIER
CHERISME, AND HIS COUNSEL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED
BY CHAPTER 440, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE TOTAL SUM OF $115,100.00,
INCLUDING $100.00 FORA SEPARATE GENERAL RELEASE, IN FULL
SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DATES OF ACCIDENT ALLEGED
AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES,
WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, UPON EXECUTING A SETTLEMENT,
HOLD HARMLESS, AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AS WELL AS A
GENERAL RELEASE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND FORMER
OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES, FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,000.00 FROM
THE INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, INDEX CODE NO.
Citv ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
50001.301001.524000.0000.00000; FURTHER ALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100.00 FOR THE SEPARATE GENERAL RELEASE FROM
THE NON -DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT NO.
00001.980000.531010.0000.00000.
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
CA.5
16-01265
District I -
Commissioner Wifredo
(Willy) Gort
R-16-0449
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT ENTITLED:
"WAGNER CREEK/SEYBOLD CANAL DREDGING/RESTORATION
PROJECT"; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPTAN
ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION REIMBURSEMENT GRANT
AWARD AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$250,000.00 ("GRANT"), FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ("FDEP"), FOR THE WAGNER
CREEK/SEYBOLD CANAL DREDGING/RESTORATION PROJECT
('PROJECT"); FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE FDEP AGREEMENT NO. S0774, AMENDMENT
NO. 2, ("SECOND AMENDED AWARD AGREEMENT'), IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND ANY AMENDMENTS,
MODIFICATIONS, EXTENSIONS, OR RENEWALS THEREOF, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO ACCEPT THE
GRANT, TO COMPLY WITH THE SECOND AMENDED AWARD
AGREEMENT, AND TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT.
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0450
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item CA.5,
please see "Order of the Day. "
CA.6
RESOLUTION
16-01302
Honorable Mayor
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DECLARING NO
Tomas Regalado
OBJECTION AND SUPPORTING THE CODESIGNATION BY THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2014-228, LAWS OF FLORIDA,
DESIGNATING STATE ROAD 968/WEST FLAGLER STREET/SOUTHWEST 1
STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 6TH AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 17TH
AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS "GUILLERMO ZAMORA BOULEVARD";
FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMITA COPY OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
DISTRICT SIX, FOR SIGN INSTALLATION WITHIN THE NEWLY
DESIGNATED ROADWAY.
Citv ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0451
Adopted the Consent Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, including all the
preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion
carried by the following vote:
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Hardemon: Before we move on, as the Yice Chairman wanted to go into basically the
discussion items and PH.3. Let's knock a few things off the agenda. Is there a motion to
approve the consent agenda?
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, second, butt want --I would like to table CA.] to the
afternoon. So, in other words, usually, you ask if there's any Commissioners that want to pull
any CA (consent agenda) items.
Commissioner Suarez: 2 through 5. I think it was 2 through 5.
Chair Hardemon: Do we --
Commissioner Carollo: So do 2 --
Commissioner Suarez: 2 through 6. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Carollo: -- through 6. CA.2 through 6. I'll second that motion, and CA.1 we'll
take up in the afternoon, if that's okay.
Chair Hardemon: That's fine. Is there any further discussion on items CA.2 through CA.6?
Any further unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motionpasses.
PA.1 PRESENTATION
16-01247
PERSONALAPPEARANCES
PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MRS. LOUISE BAKER OF THE OLIVIYA
BAKERACADEMY, CORP. REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF THEIR
CERTIFICATE OF USE.
Citv ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
PRESENTED
Chair Hardemon: At this time, we'll begin our personal appearances. Each personal
appearance will be allotted five minutes to speak. Today we have two persons that are signed
up for personal appearance. PA.1, the personal appearance is for Ms. Louise Baker. Yes.
Ma'am, can you please step to the lectern? State your name and address for the record.
Louise Baker: Oh, I just walked in. I'm so hot.
Chair Hardemon: It's okay.
Ms. Baker: My name --
Chair Hardemon: Make sure you pull the mike towards you.
Ms. Baker: Yes. I'm hot. Excuse me.
Chair Hardemon: Would you like some water?
Ms. Baker: Yes, because I just walked in.
Chair Hardemon: James, can I get some water, please?
Ms. Baker: My name is Mrs. Louise Baker, E. Louise Baker. Okay. It is so hot. Okay. And --
yes, thank you, thank you. Excuse me, excuse me, I'm sorry.
Chair Hardemon: I'd rather have you standing than laying down, so it's fine.
Ms. Baker: Yes. Okay. I stated my name. What else --? You know how to turn this off? Turn
this off, please. Okay, thank you. Okay, all right. What else you would like to know?
Chair Hardemon: Just your address for the record.
Ms. Baker: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: And then you can begin.
Ms. Baker: The address is 430 Northwest 9th Street. 430 Northwest 9th Street.
Chair Hardemon: You can start with your presentation. You can start with your presentation.
Ms. Baker: Okay. Good morning. My name is Mrs. Louise Baker. I'm a representative of
Olivia Baker's Academy Corp. (Corporation). The location is 430 Northwest 9th Street, Miami,
Florida 33136. I'm here to address the Honorable City of Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado and
City of Miami Commission, okay, of the violations on my CU (Certificate of Use) application,
written by the City of Miami Zoning employee. We applied for a CU application. We were not
aware of the violations until we began our investigation of why the Code Enforcement Oce
refused to inspect our propertyfor clearance of the CU. You will seethe paper trail of letters
and meetings, of concerns and complaints about our CU application until today, September 22,
2016. When we contacted Code Enforcement, we were told that Code Enforcement was being
delayed. Dates of visiting the Zoning Office and of Code Enforcement Offices were 211912013;
the 22, the 25 of February; March 8, 2013; March 12. I mean, within 30 days of the
application, we continued to visit and call Code Enforcement, and visit their offices. It went on
to March 20, 2013; March 27. Because Code Enforcement did not come, we reported back to
the Zoning Department to speak to the supervisor. If you would allow me, he was a Chinese
City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
guy, you know. He had a little ponytail and he was very nice, from far off. I never got a
chance to talk to him; however, I was told that he was not in the office and he -- we just could
not speak to him, because there was some type of transition that was going on. We continued to
visit. April 12, 2013; April 23. We continued to initiate calls and contact Code Enforcement.
We continued to fill out the written application. And to the pre -application form, it was placed
on the computer, the kiosk. However, I asked for a written application from the secretary -- her
name was Teri -- in the Zoning Department. I was told that the written application was in
storage and that at that time, it was impossible. So we continued to visit. It went all the way
through the year, through June 17. These requests for inspections was done at the downtown
Office. Because I could not get Code Enforcement to inspect the property, I continued to return
back to Zoning. We began to request to speak to the new supervisor, because the young
gentleman, he changed. I went to another department. Her name was Mrs. Irene Heddekis
(phonetic). She was always in a meeting or unavailable. However, I --
Chair Hardemon: Gentlemen, gentlemen, can we have one meeting? Can you lower your
voices in the corner, please? Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms. Baker: Okay. -- continued to go to the Zoning Department, because I paid for the
application and I needed this to be completed. We then tried through research to see if the
property was approvable through a resolution and an analysis for a special exception. While I
was waiting for the Code Enforcement to come and inspect the property, Ms. Irene said to me --
who is the supervisor of zoning -- stated that if the resolution is located and there is proof to
perpetuity, we can have the property approved through a resolution. It took Zoning
approximately two -- several months to locate the resolution. Then Ms. Heddekis came and
said, "I'm sorry, the resolution cannot be found in our storage and it is no longer in the City of
Miami Zoning storage area. However, I was given by Work America, Rosa Parks Charter
School representative -- who used to own the property -- Dr. W. Dean Goldsby -- documents
showing an analysis for a special exception, and then, you know, it -- in 2000 -- letting us know
that it went before Zoning before. I have the plans, all of that; I have all of that to show that we
went before Zoning for this special exception to allow a primary school. However, Ms.
Heddekis, supervisor of Zoning, stated that the school closed; Rosa Parks Charter closed, and
therefore, a new school, through the same resolution, cannot avail. I continued to complain
about why I could not have my CU. This went through to January 13, 2014; the 23rd of
January; the 4th, 2014 of February; the 27. It went to Marchand April. In April of 2014, I
reapplied for a CU application; the pre -application process through the kiosk. It was denied
again. In the year of 2015 and '16, the following occurred: Continued to contact the Zoning
Department of the City of Miami Offices, including the Mayor's office, on the following times:
April 21, 2015; October 7, 2015.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, your five minutes --
Ms. Baker: It's almost up?
Chair Hardemon: No, it expired. It expired.
Ms. Baker: Oh, it has already expired?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Baker: Oh, my gosh.
Chair Hardemon: Before we move forward, Mr. Manager, are you aware of this situation --
Ms. Baker: This --
City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: -- one second, ma'am. Are you aware of this situation?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've actually personally met with the --
Ms. Baker: I was going to get to that.
Mr. Alfonso: -- I mean, the person that's making the personal -- Ms. Louise. Our Zoning
inspector -- our Zoning coordinator -- director has met with her. We have determined that there
is no right to have a CU on that property, and we have explained it to her many times. We have
even offered to refund her application fee, to no avail.
Ms. Baker: Can I respond to that to the Commission? We found on the application -- and I can
show it to you. Can I show it to you? I would like to show it to everyone -- that there is on the
application a violation, according to Miami 21, where the -- Mr. Vince Rodriguez wrote on
there, "learning center. " And according to the Miami 21, the grid, where it shows no learning
center is allowable, he made a mistake and put it on there. I don't know whether he made a
mistake or not, but he did the wrong thing.
Chair Hardemon: So -- but this is the -- this is where we are today.
Ms. Baker: Mm-hmm.
Chair Hardemon: The City Commission does not control whether or not you get a CU or not.
Mr. Alfonso: Right.
Ms. Baker: Mm-hmm.
Chair Hardemon: It's under the strict purview of the City Manager and his staff. And so --
Ms. Baker: We spoke to the City Manager, we showed it to him, and he says, "Oh, well, maybe
you should sue us, because" --
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am --
Ms. Baker: -- you know, I don't know what that meant.
Chair Hardemon: -- ma'am --
Ms. Baker: But anyway, he said it.
Chair Hardemon: -- so what I'm explaining --
Ms. Baker: -- and it was recorded.
Chair Hardemon: -- to you is that what I've heard from the CityManager, that you cannot get
a CU on that property. I --
Ms. Baker: Well, according to the law though --
Chair Hardemon: -- ma'am, ma'am --
Ms. Baker: -- what are we going to do about that, according to the law -- according to what's
City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
written, I'm saying, you know, what's written?
Chair Hardemon: -- so he made an offer to you to refund the -- your application for the CU, so
you wouldn't have --
Ms. Baker: But from 2013, and for the years?
Chair Hardemon: -- so you would not have wasted -- okay. Here's where we are today: I was
just watching "Help me, Howard, " and on "Help me, Howard, " there was a woman, probably
80 -something, 90 years old. She applied to a different city, I believe, for some sort of a permit
to help construct her property, and not only was she not granted a permit, she had some other
hardships in her life, and they refused to even give her back the money. Why? Because they
said that the precedent from returning the money would be something that would be burdensome
for the city to actually -- to --
Ms. Baker: Well, I -- you know, and I could accept that if it wasn't in writing.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Ms. Baker: That's the only problem.
Chair Hardemon: So then your best --
Ms. Baker: Because it is in writing, we have an issue where --
Chair Hardemon: Right. So your best thing to do --
Ms. Baker: Mm-hmm.
Chair Hardemon: -- because the personal appearance is the time for you to come express
yourself to the City Commission. You've taken more than five minutes, I mean, to do this, and
we've been very patient.
Ms. Baker: I drunk my water; that was two minutes ago.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So --
Ms. Baker: We'll see.
Chair Hardemon: --what I would suggest is that you --maybe you should find some type of
legal representation if you believe that you are, in fact, due -- well, you have a right to a CU,
and then that would probably be the best thing to assist you for the --
Ms. Baker: Because that's what it says. It says that in --
Chair Hardemon: No, I understand, but --
Ms. Baker: --this tract zone --
Chair Hardemon: --can't grant you a CU.
Ms. Baker: Right, no, not you, but I do need for the Commission to hear it because --
Chair Hardemon: No.
City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Baker: -- and I just got a call from the Mayor's office that he wants to speak to me, just
now.
Chair Hardemon: Great, great, that's good. So --
Ms. Baker: And so -- I was walking in; that's another thing that had me breathing heavy.
Chair Hardemon: --I would suggest that you take that offer.
Ms. Baker: Uh-huh.
Chair Hardemon: The Mayor is here. The Mayor's office is right upstairs.
Ms. Baker: Mm-hmm.
Chair Hardemon: But for now, thank you so much for your time to come express yourself to us.
Ms. Baker: You know what? Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: I'm going to move on with our agenda.
Ms. Baker: Thank you so much for allowing us to speak, okay?
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Ms. Baker: All right.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Ms. Baker: You all have a wonderful day. Okay. Can I take my water with me?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Baker: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You can't keep the glass.
Ms. Baker: Oh, leave the glass.
Chair Hardemon: Keep the water.
PA.2 PRESENTATION
16-01325
PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY MS. GRACE SOLARES TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKING "SIMULTANEOUSLY" WITH THE
PRESENTATION OF THE MATTER THAT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
PRESENTED
Chair Hardemon: Our next personal appearance is Ms. Grace Solares. Ms. Solares, you have
five minutes to address the City Commission.
Grace Solares: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. I am Grace Solares and I have -- I
City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
am here today on behalf of myself and on behalf of Miami Neighborhoods United. What brings
me before you today is the recently implemented methods of when to allow the public to speak
before this body. While we recognize this Commission's desire to provide the public their
rightful opportunity to be heard, and at the same time, making the Commission's business
proceed in a time -saving manner, we must object -- or having to address the Commission in a
vacuum, in a manner totally out of context as we begin either to object or support an issue that
you have not even heard, and neither have we. I've been attending Commission meetings and
speaking at these meetings for many, many years. The norm was that the public would speak
after the matter was presented to the Commission by the proponent of an issue, so that the
public's presentations were meaningful presentations, totally within the context of the
conversations being carried on. For the past several Commission meetings, the public has
been instructed to speakprior to anything beingpresented to the Commission. We're being
forced to speak in a vacuum, totally devoid of context, totally devoid of any semblance of a
meaningful time and a meaningful manner to address the subject of the issue. An opportunity
to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner goes to the heart of public input,
ofpublic participation in a Commission meeting. There is nothing meaningful in the way the
public is presently allowed to speak before this Commission. Prior to coming here today, I have
researched some of the State agencies that implement Florida Statute 286 and how they handle
the participations of the public in those meetings. I reviewed the Commission for the
Transportation of Disadvantaged, the Department of Management Services, the Department of
Business and Professional Regulations, the Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of
Legal Affairs, and many others. They all state, quote: "Members of the public will be given an
opportunity to provide comment on subject matters before the Commission after an agenda item
is introduced to the Commission. " In fact, the Florida Commission of Ethics' regulations state,
quote: "During a public meeting of the Commission, public comments, if any, will be heard
immediately after staff presentation. " It is plain and simple; the public should continue to be
allowed to speak after the presentation of an item on the agenda to the Commission has been
made. In the alternative, we ask that you give the public two options: One, those who wish to
speak at the beginning of the meeting can do so and go home; two -- or two, those who wish to
stay until the presentation of a specific item can do so and will be allowed to speak after the
applicant's presentation. In closing, I will remind you that a year and a half ago, I was here on
an issue that affected me, personally; a project of a change ofzoning, immediately 60 feet away
from my front door. And Ms. Lucia Dougherty was representing the applicant on the other side.
And Ms. Lucia Dougherty, towards the end of the presentation, said, "Do we have to do these
things? Because we cannot rent the houses to people with children, " because it's a very
difficult -- it's a very, very traffic -- very dangerous area of the City. Well, guess what? I was
sitting right here, next to my lawyer, and I had taken pictures, because I wanted to show to the
Commission the area wherein they were actually asking for the change. And what one of the
pictures show? Two families coming out of the house, because one lives in the house and the
other one lives in a legal unit -- illegal unit with the two children. IfI would have spoken in the
morning and gone home, or would have stayed here in the afternoon, I would not have been
able to show this Commission the inadequacies. My record to appeal her -- the decision of this
committee, if it would have been against me, I would have been prevented from presenting that
type of an evidence that would have helped me, because her statements were actually false. So
-- I know my five minutes are up.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Solares --
Ms. Solares: So I ask you --I thank you for your time today, and ask you, please, to choose the
options of giving the public a time to speak in the morning if they want to and go home, or to
remain here and be able to speak immediately after the matter is presented to you.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Solares, the --I thank you so much for your presentation. I-
-
City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Solares: I thank you for allowing me.
Chair Hardemon: -- will have the City Attorney to make a few statements about this issue at
hand, but to everyone that's here, I want to make something very clear.
Ms. Solares: Can you speak a little bit louder? Can --
Chair Hardemon: I mean, they --
Ms. Solares: -- at 70 years of age, I don't hear well.
Chair Hardemon: I try not to raise my voice too much, because, you know -- nothing.
Commissioner Suarez: Let it go.
Ms. Solares: You can raise your voice; you just don't have to get mad.
Chair Hardemon: No, no. So the goal of the public's opportunity to be heard -- so Florida
Statute, of course, says that the public must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard on any
matters. And as long as I've been here, the public has been speaking after every single agenda
item, and what it's led to, especially now that we're moving -- what I've learned from this term
that I've been sitting as Chairman is that we have Commission meetings that -- many have gone
past the 11 o'clock hour; despite the fact that our governing documents say that our meetings
should be concluded at 10 p.m., if not for any objection from this Board. But because we've
had members of the community that have been sitting in the audience from 9 o'clock a.m. to
sometimes 11:30, midnight, we've kept our meetings moving. Now, I will say that I personally
believe that when you have a person from the community that's been here from 9 o'clock in the
morning and that even stays till 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock, just to make a personal state -- a statement
to this Commission, that is unreasonable, and that's not within the guidelines of the Florida
Statute for a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Now, the reasonable opportunity to be heard
is not for an individual person. It's not for Grace Solares, it's not for Ms. Louise Baker; it's for
the public as a whole. So I'll give you an example. If all 20 -- if 20, 000 residents came to this
Commission to speak and asked for two minutes to speak, I'm perfectly within my authority,
within the law, to not allow 20, 000 people to speak, because we have to be able to move about
the business of this City Commission. And so what I've found is that when we have -- say today
-- today's a light agenda, but within this light agenda, there's 16 PZ (Planning & Zoning) items
and 10 RE (resolution) items. And I'm not the greatest with math, but if every -- if one person,
just one person decided to speak for two minutes from RE.1 to RE.10 --two times 10 is 20. And
then so one person for those items that I've just named would be in excess of 40 minutes; just
one person. And so, if we had another person, that's another 40 minutes. And so, what I'm
saying to you is that these meetings have the potential to move -- to be extended for a long
duration of time, just by having three persons from the community that want to speakfor two
minutes each. And I don't think that that is a reasonable thing for people, when you have so
many people that want to give their opinion about whatever it may be on the agenda, and you
have to get into a discussion by our Commissioners. And so, what we've chosen to do is to give
the public a reasonable opportunity to be heard; guarantee them a time in which I think it's
reasonable for them to speak, so those who are here, obviously, they're not at work. They may
have to speak and go to work, and now, they have an opportunity to come in the morning to
speak and go home. And furthermore, the last example that you gave, where you said you were
appealing the -- appealing whatever presentation was being -- really, it's hard to tell, because
you don't -- I don't really know the facts. But what we have to understand is that, especially
with our PZ items, that the public still has an opportunity to be heard, but they're not -- many
times, they're not parties to whatever is happening at the time. And I say that to say sometimes,
you have an applicant, and you have someone who appealed a matter, or someone who is
City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
directly on the other side, which is why you have a court reporter and why people are investing
dollars into the issue. And the reason I bring that up is because it's between those two parties
that really have the ability to argue and put forth evidence before us to speak and to consider.
And so, having the public inject themselves into that discussion, where it's really a legal
proceeding between two different parties, I think is not correct, and it oftentimes makes it --
puts the City of Miami in a very bad position, because we muddied the waters, if you will, so
much. And so, the public here in the City of Miami gets to speak on items on first reading, on
second reading; and many times, at other times during the reading, especially during
committees, PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board), things of that nature. So they've had
the opportunity to be heard many, many, many times. I'll give you an example. In the County,
it doesn't happen that way. In the County, the public has an opportunity to speak on matters
that are in committee. And sometimes, you get an opportunity to speak before the Commission,
but in the morning time, before all matters are handled. I've seen --
Ms. Solares: In my opinion, that's wrong.
Chair Hardemon: -- in the School Board, where the School Board sometimes handles public
comment after the measures are passes, in the afternoon, after 5 p.m. And so, what I've seen
from the different meetings that I've been watching is that we have been unreasonably making
our meetings too long, and it's been at -- to the detriment of public comment. And what I'd like
to do is move our meetings efficiently, and give the public an opportunity to be heard in the
mornings; and also in the afternoon, before PZ items, so there are two opportunities for them to
be heard: On the regular agenda items, which, for this matter, would be your CA (Consent
Agenda) items, your PH (Public Hearing) items, your FR (First Reading) items, your RE items,
and BC (Boards and Committees) agenda items; they're speaking in the morning. And then, in
the afternoon, before the Planning & Zoning items, the public will have an opportunity to speak
before those issues are heard at that time. And so I think that this is perfectly reasonable and
within the law. And what I'd like to do is ask the City Attorney, if there's a different opinion,
please tell me so now, or put whatever information you'd like to put on the record.
Burnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Suarez: No, go ahead.
Mr. Min: I --frankly, I can't be as eloquent as you. The Florida Statute simply allows the --
requires the public to have a reasonable opportunity to speak prior to propositions being
considered by the City Commission. There is no requirement in the Florida Statute, nor in the
City Code that it actually has to happen prior to each particular item. In fact, both the State
Statute and the City Code say that the opportunity to speak can be at a different meeting from
when the proposition is actually considered. Further, Chapter 2 of the City Code allows the
Commission to handle how you want to allow decorum and how matters are going to be
addressed in order to efficiently move the Commission agenda. So, from a legal standpoint, all
that's required is the public have a reasonable opportunity to speak prior to the adoption of the
matter.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. First of all, you know, obviously, I commend your efforts to
-- you've done a great job of trying to move things along. Certainly, in consideration of the
fact that we do have long meetings, typically; and they do typically run, you know, sometimes
over 12 hours, or generally over 12 hours. Having said that, you know, there has been -- I got
-- I have to tell you, I've received several complaints about the change in the practice, and even
City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
though I think the City Attorney articulated what is the minimum standard, I don't think,
necessarily, that's the best standard.
Chair Hardemon: We far exceed the minimum standard.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, let me give you a couple of scenarios under which I think, you
know, this could create issues, both ways, okay? I'll give you one scenario. So I think some
residents obviously come here, and they want to get -- they want to say what they want to say,
before going to work, like you said, or after coming to work. So they don't necessarily want to
wait 12 hours till the item actually comes up. I think we should give those people an
opportunity to come in here, say their peace, feel like they're being heard by us, give their
perspective, and then they can go about their business. Having said that, when you bring all
the public hearing items to a head at the same time, then you may have one item, for example,
that has a hundred speakers; and another item that just has one speaker, but the person is
really passionate about that issue. They may have to wait till all the hundred speakers are
done, because all the public speaking is compressed into one time slot. You get what I'm
saying? So, for them, they're left with the prospect of waiting, you know, 50 times 2, like you
said, 100 minutes to speak or not speaking at all, or just being very frustrated. The other thing
that's happened is -- which I think precipitated some of these changes is -- and you said it
correctly -- is we've had sometimes items where audience members have been therefor 10
hours, and then it gets deferred after 10 hours, and they are extremely frustrated with having
had spent 10 hours, waiting to have an opportunity to speak on an issue, ultimately to see it get
deferred. And I think that militates in favor of doing it at maybe a couple ofstructured times,
and then maybe sort of --at least what I like is that you've presented some options. It wasn't
just, you know, "I feel like it should go back to the status quo." You actually gave a couple of
ideas. Maybe the idea would be for people to sign up, because, like you said, there --
sometimes, there's people that will come up and speak two minutes on every single item, and
sometimes they're not even on -- talking about the item itself. You know, they're -- you know,
whatever the case may be. And so, maybe if somebody is diligent enough to go and sign a
speaker card, then that person -- those people who have signed speaker cards can speak on that
item, within the context, because I think there is value to having the thing spoken about within
the context of when the item is presented, so food for thought. I think, maybe, there's a
refinement. You know, sometimes we go too much in one direction and then we get a push back,
and maybe there's a way to come back a little bit from -- I understand that it was all done in
good faith and there's precedent for what you did, and we all supported it. I just think that, you
know, at the end of the day, our job ultimately is to serve the public, and so we have to do what
the public wants us to do and -- within reasonable measure.
Chair Hardemon: Right. So, Commissioner Suarez -- and I will say that the number of
complaints that I've received about this system comes from individuals that I believe are very,
very involved within the City matters; they're not generally from the public. In fact, from the
public, they've --from the general public, I've heard good things about how we want to move
everything forward. And I'll tell you, if there is a matter that is before two different parties that
does not involve a member from the public -- and what I mean by that is, there's a legal issue
that we're trying to decide -- and I'll give you a perfect example: We had a decision to decide
with a bid -- it was a bid protest, and with the bid protest -- you remember the bid protest that
we just recently had, which was between two, maybe three parties, arguably, but when you have
members from the public interject themselves into the discussion, it becomes something much
different than what it is. The people who the public has elected to engage in a discussion --and
typically we have discussion before the vote -- are the Commissioners. And if someone wants to
engage in that discussion, I think they should be a Commissioner. We've always allowed
someone, if they had valuable information, to proffer that information before the Commission,
before we make our decision. If there's unreadiness by any Commissioner, we've said, "Wait, do
we want to hear from Ms. Solares?" And we've allowed Ms. Solares to come speak, even though
City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
the public discussion is closed. And so I think the Chair has been amenable to all those
different types of things when we are in need of information. We're never here saying, "Well, we
need more information, and the rules are too stringent to allow us to get that information. "
We've gotten that information. And so, I'm saying that to say to you all that discussion is, I
believe, a monster that the Commission must tackle and I think we do well enough of that
discussion, and I support the structure as we have been moving forward. I think that it's a
smart thing to do, and it doesn't take away from anyone's ability to speak before this
Commission. Moreover, it is not the minimum standard of the Florida Statute; it far exceeds it,
because the public has numerous amounts -- numerous opportunities to be heard and -- before
that agenda item is passed, and we do allow people to speak at times that it is not identified on
our agenda as opportunity to speak. You're recognized, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Grace, thank you for coming today. You
and I ran against each other in a race for this very seat, and I have to say, every time you've
come, you've brought very salient arguments on very -- you speak very clearly about important
things, and I take it to heart, so I thank you. I think we always will have a balance on
efficiency versus transparency, and it's my opinion that we should err on the side of
transparency over efficiency. I was giving a tour here. By chance, I meta mayor from Japan,
who happened to be walking in the parking lot, and I showed him around the building. And he
was, "Oh, this is beautiful. " He says, "What is that thing?" I said, "Oh, that's a lectern. That's
a podium. " "What do you do with that?" "That's where the public addresses us. " "You let the
public address you?" You know, we don't want to be there and I don't want to give the
impression that we're brushing the public's opinion aside, so I'm certainly in favor of the
changes you recommended, which is a hybrid, which does take into account the Chairman's
change for efficiency, gives options, but also allows people to speak at the item. I know we'll
have discussion about it when the item comes up, but thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Ms. Solares: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, I understand what you're saying. We have individuals in
here that'll speak on any items, even if it's not particular to their -- to them; it's not within their
neighborhood, it's not with the -- and they'll speak on every item, and those are the people that
take a lot of our time. And most of the times, people need to understand that we have 'X"
amount of time. And you, as the Chairperson -- and I've seen you tell people, "Two minutes are
up, " and people continue to talk and talk and we have to enforce the two minutes, and that's it,
whatever the time limit is. I also believe -- my understanding is we should give an opportunity
in cases where the people have a lot to say about the one issue -- and you've said it -- we can
call them and let them speak on behalf of that issue. I think we have to mix the two of them,
because a lot of people, like you were saying, they'll make a presentations in the morning, and
they'll go. During the presentation of the person doing the arguments might come up with
something which is really completely different to what was heard in the morning, and that's
something we need to look into.
Chair Hardemon: I think in matters like that, then it's -- it wouldn't be -- maybe then -- well --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: So we had a policy, we changed the policy, and so, we've gotten some
reaction to that. And so, I don't think there's ever a bad idea to maybe make some
modifications, make some adjustments, just to see how things work. Maybe a way to do it is to
City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
say we do one in the morning, so people who want to come from work can come and speak; we
do one in the afternoon, so that people who are coming from work can also have an opportunity
to speak, and then people who present a card on a specific item, a speaker card, can speak
contextually on that item, so that it reduces people who are just going to get up and speak on
every single item, you know, habitually.
Chair Hardemon: I don't think that it changes anything. I think that we'll find ourselves in the
same position where you'll have a few individuals capitalizing a lot of time from the City
Commission, and it's just not something that I'm willing to move forward with. I think it's not
respectful -- one, it's very difficult for the Chair to keep the meeting moving in the way that it
should. When I've watched other meetings of other governments within our community that go
so much quicker than ours, they have consent agendas where they pull items, and this
Commission doesn't feel very comfortable pulling items the way that other Commissions -- I
mean other cities and other governments do. And so, we've tried to find a way to make it more
palatable. However, opening the floodgates once again to continuous discussion, that's just
going to belabor issues that they've all -- that the public has had a reasonable opportunity to be
heard about and have already discussed, I think it's just a wrong decision. And so, you know,
Mr. Mayor, if you will, can you take the lectern, please? You know, I do the best that I can as
your Chair. You named me as Chair to run these meetings, and I'm trying to do that. And I will
tell you that, I mean, this is a matter that I find to be extremely important, because it goes to
the heart of One, the public's reasonable opportunity to be heard; and two, our ability to get
business done within the City Commission. And it makes no sense to me that this Commission
has to meet for as long as we meet on matters, not because of the level of difficulty of the
matters, but simply because we've allowed a system that really creates so much inefficiency that
our meetings go on and on and on and on and on. And so, you know, I'll tell you that I'm going
to do my best to exercise my authority as Chair to move forward in a way that I believe is right
for this Commission, but, obviously, knowing that the will of the Chairman is only allowed
through its board members. And so, you know, my intent is to continue to give the public a
reasonable opportunity to be heard, far exceeding what the law allows; never not providing
someone an opportunity -- the public an opportunity to be heard on matters, but I want to do it
in a way that I believe is right and I think is lawful. And although Ms. Solares is someone that
we all respect, even the examples that she gave are much different from any other body that we
find to be our equals, in a sense, and our contemporaries, such as a Broward City Commission,
Miami -Dade County Commission; just even other Commissions within the municipalities. And
so, you know, I'd like to move forward the way that we have things -- We've now been discussing
our PA (Personal Appearance) agenda for quite some time, and I'd like to move on through, so
that we can have our public comment period for items CA (Consent Agenda), PH (Public
Hearing), FR (First Reading), RE (Resolution) and BC (Boards and Committees). Okay?
Mayor Tomas Regalado: And Mr. Chairman, I, having sat where you sit for many years, I do
think -- First, number one: Every year, every time that I have appointed a Chairman, I really
believe that the Chairman is the Chairman, that I don't interfere on any of the persons that
have been appointed here with the way that you conduct business. That's the role of the
Chairman. Second, I will say to you that there are many, many items in the agenda; however,
the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items are kind of different, because I have seen through history that
the proponent says something and speak on behalf of some residents, which has been not true,
and that's an opportunityfor the residents to come. So that's the balance that you have to --
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, which is --
Mayor Regalado: -- do as Chair and --
Chair Hardemon: -- and Mr. Mayor, which is why I made the statement that there have been
opp -- there have been times when there are statements that need to be made by residents during
City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
that time which public comments closed, and we've allowed those public comments to be made.
But to open the floodgates for every single person that wants to speak on an agenda item
because one statement was made by an attorney representing a party, I think would be the
wrong thing to do. Ma'am.
Ms. Solares: May I ask you something in closing, Mr. Chairman? The matter before my -- in
front of my house will be coming again before this body on a differentformat. I would like to
speak that day, sir, at the time that Lucia Dougherty makes their presentation; if I may, I'm
asking you.
Chair Hardemon: You know, and I'm not there today. The facts aren't before me at this time. I
don't know in what capacity it's coming before. The one thing --
Ms. Solares: Right, but if you're here.
Chair Hardemon: Right. Now, what I'm saying to you --
Ms. Solares: Ifyou're here.
Chair Hardemon: -- is that --
Ms. Solares: I'd like to be able to speak at the time that the proponent makes the presentation;
not in the morning, not at 2 o'clock. Whenever the matter -- I'll sit there till hell freezes.
Chair Hardemon: I'm sure.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Solares: The quote that Lyndon Johnson -- I mean, not Lyndon Johnson -- Adlai Stevenson
said to the Russians at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. I will sit right here till hell freezes,
until I hear that presentation they're going to make.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Solares: And also, I may suggest that your Planning & Zoning Department do not schedule
20 items on your agenda to hear; to be a little bit more -- what can I say? -- responsible in what
they actually put before you in one meeting. There are extremely important issues before this
board today that will take a long time before you get to the PZ items in the afternoon, so you
can do, actually, that, as well; request that not that many PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals
Board) meetings be placed on the agenda before a City Commission.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Ms. Solares.
Ms. Solares: Thank you so much.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: I'll volunteer to call her up when that item comes up, so she can come
and speak on that item.
END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PUBLIC HEARING
PHA RESOLUTION
City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
16-01175
Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 18-92 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING,
APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF A
SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE
SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES AND APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT
OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) PVP COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS MOTORCYCLE
HELMET COMMUNICATION KITS WITH RELATED EQUIPMENT FROM
SHANNON GEORGIA DIERINGER D/B/A BLUE LINE COMMUNICATIONS,
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACTUAL
BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, RENEWABLE ANNUALLY,
SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL FINDING OF SOLE SOURCE BY THE CHIEF
PROCUREMENT OFFICER AND APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR
AN INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE OF $38,639.25; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND ACCOUNT CODE NO.
12500.191602.55200, PROJECT NO. 19-690002, AWARD NO. 1019 AND
TASK NO. 07.18; WITH FUTURE PURCHASES TO BE ALLOCATED FROM
THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0452
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve PH. I and PH2?
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we approve items PH.1 and
PH2. Is there any discussion or unreadiness about those two items? Seeing none, all in favor,
say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes.
PH.2
RESOLUTION
16-01252
District 4-
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
Commissioner Francis
BY FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED
.Suarez
PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY
MANAGER'S FINDING THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND
PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES;
Citv ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS, ON A
REIMBURSEMENT BASIS, FROM THE DISTRICT 4 SHARE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI'S ("CITY") ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE PROGRAM, ACCOUNT NO.
15500.112000.882000, IN ATOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $48,000.00,
TO VENTURE HIVE, LLC, TO RUN TWO (2) TEEN TECH PROGRAMS, A
TWELVE (12) WEEK AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AND A ONE (1) WEEK
WINTER BREAK PROGRAM ATATO BE DETERMINED CITY PARKAND
RECREATION FACILITY WITHIN DISTRICT 4; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A GRANTAGREEMENT WITH
VENTURE HIVE, LLC, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITYATTORNEY,
FOR SAID PURPOSE.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0453
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH2, please see item PH1.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PH2,
please see "Order of the Day. "
PH.3 RESOLUTION
16-00821
Department of Public A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
Works ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "BATTERSEA WOODS", A REPLATAND
A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
"ATTACHMENT 1", SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS
REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN
"EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND THE PROVISIONS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON
THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGERAND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF
THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
DENIED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Chair Hardemon: Now, we find ourselves at PK3, and so, to assist my Vice Chairman, I know
that you would like to hear a -- it was a discussion on it, correct?
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah, yeah, to -- after this item.
Chair Hardemon: Oh. So you'd like to address PK3 first. All right. Mr. Manager, can you
please introduce PK3?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, what --?
Chair Hardemon: We're on PH3.
Citv ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Alfonso: PresentPH.3?
Chair Hardemon: Correct, please.
Mr. Alfonso: Staff, go ahead.
Juvenal Santana: Morning, Commissioners. Juvenal Santana, deputy director of Public Works.
Chair Hardemon: Welcome.
Mr. Santana: Thank you. PH.3 is a resolution accepting the final plat of Battersea Woods,
located along the south side of Battersea Road and along the northwesterly side ofingraharn
Highway.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any motion? Is there a motion, Vice Chairman?
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, I believe the developer wanted to save their time to speak until
this point, that's why they didn't speak during the public hearing portion, so if he --
Chair Hardemon: Is there a presentation you'd like to make, sir?
Carlos Sosa: I'm sorry?
Chair Hardemon: Is there a presentation that you would like to make, or you just want to --?
Mr. Sosa: And one that have been --
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Please announce yourself for the record, please.
Mr. Sosa: Good morning. My name is Carlos Sosa. I live in 5811 Marjorie Street, Coral
Gables. I am one of the Battersea Woods developers. This is the fourth hearing for the
acceptance of the final plat of Battersea Woods. Until now, we have heard arguments and
comments from neighbors against our project. We have yet to hear from all the City experts
who reviewed and approved this plan, and we have not been able until this moment to present
the facts about our development and our point of view. We thank you for the opportunity to
speak. After more than 33 months of work with the City of Miami officials, and reviews and
approval by all the departments, over 900 comments and changes in our project during the
three-year period -- something that, as far as we have checked, no other projects has gone
through -- on July 14, the decision for acceptance of the plat was deferred, because the
Commission needed more time to review the plan. On July 29, Commissioner Russell asked
that we meet with the neighbors to present the project and answer their questions; we did, and
the first meeting, Commissioner Russell and Mr. Balzebra (phonetic) were present. We
presented the arguments in a professional and articulate way, and some of the neighbors that
are here could guarantee that that was the case. There was no conspiracy, there was no hidden
information; and we clear, one by one, the main (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that at the time were
presented and deemed as objections to the project. On September 8, the decision was deferred
again as allegations of missing information in communications between the City Attorney and
the office of Commissioner Russell. We understand we are in the middle of a process at a time
that is highly complicated, that, we understand. But as developers, the decision to defer the
approval of our plat has significant economic impact on our project. But to us, as some of the
neighbors who have spoken, money is important. The right to make money in this country is
guaranteed by law, if you follow the Code, if you follow the rules. Although Commissioner
Russell has publicly and privately confirmed us that we have done nothing wrong, the
seriousness of the innuendos even referred consistently here today by many of those present has
City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
produced public statements and media reports which have had an undue moral impact in our
team, in our families, in our compromises, and the solid ethical professional history of our
development group. I have been 50 years in real estate; my father was for 55 years; my two
sons have been for 35 years, and my families of 40 years. We know what we're talking about.
We are not improvising; we're not like passing the ball; we're not using loophole to do our
development.
Chair Hardemon: Sir --
Mr. Sosa: We work for three years with the City officials. We emphatically reject the
characterization that has been made of us from this publics here. We are seasoned developers,
with decades of experience, we take our duty seriously, and for years, we have brought jobs and
opportunity to hundreds of people in the City of Miami. We stand proud of the work we do, with
social, environmental, economic, and ethical responsibility. We have our arguments. My
partners will present some of those arguments, and I think that you should consider those
arguments in the decisions that you are going to make. Thank you.
Carlos Tosca: Gentlemen, thank you all for giving us a chance to speak. I appreciate it. I've
got a whole bunch ofstuff, but I'm not going to use any of it. I live in the neighborhood with
these folks, and I appreciate them coming out and speaking. Carlos Tosca, 6844 Sunrise Court.
I understand for you folks, you hear this, and there's a lot of anger about our project, but
there's not. There's a lot of anger about the Code. They don't like NCD -3; they don't like
Miami 21. I shouldn't pay the price for that. Change NCD -3; change Miami 21. It cannot be
that every developer is corrupt and the entire City is somehow coerced. The Code allows for
certain things. Those are our rights. We're operating within our rights. I understand that they
don't like it. That's fine. Change the Code. I'll work under the new Code. I'll turn -- work
under whatever Code. I work in five different cities. They all have different codes. But the law
is the law; the Code is the Code, and that's why we are where we are. And when you buy
something and you invest in it, you expect it to be the way it's written. And that's alll got to
say. Okay, I'll leave the rest of this out. My attorney would like to say a few things; probably
three minutes, if you guys care a lot --
Chair Hardemon: That's fine.
Mr. Tosca: -- three minutes for him. I'd appreciate it. Thankyou.
Paul Figg: Good morning. My name is Paul Figg. I'm with the law firm of Berger Singerman,
and I represent Battersea Woods. My colleague, Javier Vazquez, is not able to be here today,
because he's under the knife. I want you to know that I've filed lobbyist registration and
enrolled in the course for the -- the ethics course. I was not able to make the class I was
enrolled for because of a trial, but I once again enrolled, so I would ask that you give me a
waiver to present here today.
Chair Hardemon: If there is no objection, that waiver will be granted.
Vice Chair Russell: No objection.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing none, move forward, please.
Mr. Figg: Okay. We're back here again. This is the Commission's fourth time considering the
Battersea Woods plat. We've gone through the legal issues regarding NCD -3 over and over. I
am confident. The Zoning administrator has determined Battersea Woods, LLC (Limited
Liability Company) has performed all requirements of Miami 21 and the Code. The Zoning
administrator has also determined that the warrant process does not apply. The CityAttorney
City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
has determined that the warrant process does not apply. The time to approve this plat is upon
you. Not approving the plat and requiring Battersea Woods to go through the warrant process
is a futile process, because the residents are here, where they would be upon appeal of the
warrant that would be issued. My client has met with each of you to clam the
misrepresentations of fact made on the dais and in the press; they are substantial. You all feel
bad for my clients, I believe. You feel they are professional developers, know what they're
doing and follow the rules, but that they are caught up in a political issue. You know this is not
right, but if that knowledge does not change your vote, then this is pure political theater.
Battersea Woods will have to do all they can to protect the property rights of Battersea Woods,
LLC, because that's what this is about. In most cases, governments have the right to make
decisions that eliminate property rights, but the Constitution requires that when you take the
rights of a property owner and give those rights to other property owners, the government must
pay for it. You have heard from the neighboring residents. They all live on subdivided lots.
They are all in the chain of title with those that subdivided land -- subdivided un platted land,
sold the lots, and extracted the value of the land. They would have no rights under your Code,
were they not. Now, having received that benefit, they want to deny that benefit to my client.
For this Commission to indulge this plea is to convert the property -- private property to
property of the State. That's not how our form of government works. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. So at this time, we want to make sure that we have
some direction, so if there's a motion or some discussion that's brief to lead us to a motion, so
we know where we're going with things, Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: I want to ask a question. Is this considered Jenning [sic] Rules apply to
this? Nevertheless, I'd like to -- on September 19, that afternoon, around 12:25, I met with Mr.
Carlos Tosca, Mr. Gunshot De Ribeaux and Mr. Carlos Sosa. They came to my office and
asked if they could meet with me. I met with them and my chief of staff, Frank Castaneda, and
discussed -- they discussed the Batters Wood [sic] (UNINTELLIGIBLE). The meeting was
originally scheduled for September --next day at 10 o'clock. This meeting would not influence
in my decision.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Jennings does not apply to this, if I'm not mistaken.
Chair Hardemon: No, Jennings does not apply.
Commissioner Gort: Just in case.
Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney --
Vice Chair Russell: Just in case.
Chair Hardemon: --Madam City Attorney.
Commissioner Gort: Just in case.
Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): It doesn't apply, but thank you, Commissioner Gort.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I would like to begin a short discussion that will lead us to a motion,
and it will be my intent that we deny this plat, and that will be my motion. It will not be
arbitrary, nor capricious; it will not be personal toward anyone involved; it'll be based on the
facts and the technicalities. And I'd like to start by apologizing to the developer for the tone
with which they feel they've been treated, and certainly, with what's been said in the press. I
did clearly state in that first deferral that Javi Vazquez, other than not being registered as a
lobbyist at the time, had done nothing wrong in lobbying the City and advocating for his client.
You, as developers, have done nothing wrong in working on your project and trying to be as
most efficient, profitable as possible. That is your job, and I do not mean to demonize you for
that.
Chair Hardemon: I will accept the proffer of the Vice Chairman as a motion. Is there a second
to his motion?
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's properly seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Discussion.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. The very first opinion on this came from Public Works, where
they have the purview of the plats, and they said in September of 2015 that they approved the
above tentative plat, subject to the following revisions, and punch number 25 stated that there
would need to be a hundred foot frontages, and a warrant is required. Pamela Stanton, who is
Planning & Zoning, then also echoed this sentiment, and that the subject of the warrant
submittal was attached in her opinion, where they said minimum lot size and lot width of a
hundred feet, and the proposed lots do not meet the minimum -size requirements for
single-family oversized lot residential designation. Amanda Quirke, from the Legal
Department, when asked to opine, said, "I reviewed this issue at length with Planning &
Zoning, to see if we could get to the same interpretation. We could not. This is an un platted
lot that's had a house on it for more than 50 years. It is a building site, and no building site
shall be diminished in the NCD without a warrant. " Daniel Goldberg, in the Law Department,
said, "Amanda and I have discussed this extensively, and I agree with her assessment. They are
trying to get out of the NCD -3 warrant requirement for diminishing size. Any building site in
existence in"-- 'prior to 2005. The un platted land has a house on it, so it is a building site.
Furthermore, the house is old enough that the un platted land was conveyed in that
configuration prior to September 1946, so it falls into the platting exception. It's a building
site. " Devin Cejas said in his opinion on January 20, after the winds had changed in this
situation, "Please be advised that a warrant to diminish the size of this un platted building site
in question is not needed. " That's where he said, "it's not needed, " but notice his words: "To
diminish the size of this un platted building site. " He's calling it "a building site. " It goes on.
We have opinions going back and forth, countering either direction within our own department,
and from Dan Goldberg's final opinion, he changed from his original opinion, where he said,
"Warrant requirement still applies to platted lots " -- Where he said a warrant was not required
with this one, he later said, "Warrant requirement still applies to platted lots, including any
case where the applicant submits a T -Plat or plat" -- 'partially platted and partially un platted
land. As your Battersea T -Plat is only un platted lands, a warrant is not required. " This has
been admitted, even by the Law Department, that this was a flawed opinion and that Battersea
is actually partially platted. And so, here we are. We do have a final opinion from our Zoning
administrator, but everything in this warrant requirement and the hundred foot frontage, both
of which have been removed from the original Public Works punch list, hinge on the definition
of "building site" and "a lot. " And anyone with reasonable understanding of their eyes and the
English language can look at it and see a building on a site and say, "That's a building site. "
City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
They can look at that lot and say, "It is a lot. " And if it is a building site, it needed to go to
warrant. If it is a lot, they need hundred foot frontages. That would not allow them to do five
properties, but most likely three, I would say. If it were to go through the warrant process,
would the neighbors oppose three versus five? We don't know, because it never went to that
process. So the reason I'm moving that we deny the plat is that it did not go through the
appropriate process where it should have through the warrant, which would have allowed the
public opportunity and PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board), most importantly, a public
hearing body that can help interpret what the Zoning administrator has decided versus what the
developers asked for can be done in a public and proper way. Our Administration is human;
we are people. People can make mistakes. And one of the ladies who spoke earlier today
talked about 20 other instances in the Grove right now that are questionable, and I've asked for
an investigation on every single one of them. It's actually not 20; there was less, but they've
been split, so now they're 20. So I'm going to talk about 15. I'm not going to go through them,
but, you know, we're talking about all the ones that you mentioned from Avocado to Anne's or
Royal Palm, Plaza Street, Loquat Avenue, Ventura, Justison, Grove Street. We all know these
intimately, because we walk our dogs and we see them, and we say, "How is that happening?"
Well, we've done the investigation, and of the 13 cases that I spent 2 hours with Devin looking
at yesterday, how many would you guess that we got wrong and lot -splitting occurred without a
warrant? 13. And this is by admission of our Zoning administrator that these fell through the
cracks, or there was a way around that exists where a developer is not breaking the law, but
there is a way for him to vacate the lot, demolish the building; then go to County, and get four
addresses put on it; then come back to the City, and not go through the Zoning administrator,
but rather go through the GIS (Geographic Information System) Mapping Department and get
an address, a separate address for each one of these. And it bypasses the system in a way that
what was intended does not happen. What can be done? Now, according to the Zoning
administrator, once concrete is poured, an error cannot be rectified. That is a mistake we have
made, and that is a shame, because here we have 20 -- up to 20 properties that may be that
way, but of those, I would say one, two, three, four, five, six, it's too late. The other remaining
seven, Devin has caught where the missteps happened or where the loopholes were utilized to
get past it, and some of those have only been partially built. So instead of four, maybe it can
be controlled to two. These are all further investigation and discussion to have, but you're not
wrong. We're making mistakes, and the results are affecting our community. And so, with this
information, gentlemen, I move that we deny this T -Plat.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been already properly moved and seconded. Is there any further
discussion on the item? Is there any unreadiness?
Mr. Tosca: Just a very quick statement which will not make much of a difference.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Mr. Tosca: I just want to make one quick statement to give an example of how any facts can be
manipulated to look a certain way. Amanda Quirke's opinion says that we fit into the platting
exemption, because our property had been conveyed in the same manner prior to 1946, because
the house was built in 1910. She obviously did not take the time to look at the deeds. The
house was conveyed in 1954 to separate land out, and that's when Cherry Crop Subdivision was
created. So she's plainly wrong. And there'll be more of that as this comes on. You guys don't
have the time to go through the number of hours that we have and that your staff has to come to
this conclusion. But we do have concrete poured, we've got permits, we've got houses being
built, and that's just one example of a couple of people that were against our plat for a very
short period of time. Public Works originally said, "no warrant. " Zoning said, "no warrant, "
for 18 months. It was only two months that a couple of people said, "Oh, yeah, they need a
City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
warrant, because of political pressure, " and then it was clarified, because the Code doesn't say
we need to go to a warrant. Lot splits, I actually agree, need to go to a warrant, because a lot
split can circumvent its own existence, but a plat cannot. A plat went to the Zoning Board. And
the hundred footfrontage or not hundred foot frontage is a separate thing entirely. The Zoning
Code that applies to us is T3 -R. I believe it's 5,000 -square -foot lots; that's what's applicable.
So it's just one example of how something can be looked at relatively quickly when you want to
see it a certain way. There's no question that Amanda Quirke is wrong. 1954, the western
hundred or 200 feet of that property was deeded out. We got the deed. And with that, I'll let
you guys vote.
Chair Hardemon: Further -- thank you very much. Is there any further discussion? Any
unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion on the floor, indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Against? Motionpasses.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): And Chair, for the record, that'll be unanimous, 5-0, to deny.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
END OF PUBLIC HEARING
FIRST READING ORDINANCES
FRA ORDINANCE First Reading
16-00929
District 5 -
Commissioner Keon TO BE DEFERRED
Hardemon
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
62/ARTICLE XIII/DIVISION 5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PLANNING AND ZONING/PLANNING
AND ZONING APPROVAL FOR TEMPORARY USES AND OCCUPANCIES;
PERMIT REQUIRED/MURALS" BYAMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH MURALS ARE PERMITTED AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item FR.] was continued to the October 27, 2016Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
FR.2 ORDINANCE First Reading
16-01267
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
2/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 9 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENTS/COMMUNITY
Citv ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT", MORE PARTICULARLY
BY CREATING A CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") RESIDENT PREFERENCE
REQUIREMENT FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS RECEIVING FUNDS OR
BENEFITS FROM THE CITY TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE OR WORKFORCE
HOUSING WITHIN THE CITY, AND CREATING A PREFERENCE TO CITY
RESIDENTS FOR RENTAL OR SALE OF THE AFFORDABLE AND
WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
SPONSORS: HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO
COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, 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 Hardemon: All right. We have a few minutes. We can probably fly through at least a
couple things. The FR (first reading) agenda, FR.2.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: City Manager?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Commissioners, FR.2 is an ordinance of the Miami City
Commission amending Chapter 2, Article 4, Division 9 of the Code of the City ofMiami,
Florida, as amended, entitled 'Administration/Department/Community and Economic
Development Department"; more particularly, by creating a development -- I apologize --
creating a City ofMiami -- "City" -- Resident Preference -- I'm losing my eyesight --
requirement for all development receiving funds or benefits from the City to develop affordable
or workforce housing within the City, and creating preference to City residents for rental or sale
of the affordable and workforce housing units; containing a severability clause and providing
for an effective date. In effect, this is something that had been asked by this Commission that
we looked into. We went and met with HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development).
They agreed that we could establish that preference for City ofMiami residents, and so we're
bringing the ordinance to you.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Min, was that sufficient for reading into the record?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir; as long as the record -- it's in the record, that's
all that's necessary.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Min: I would have done it much more eloquently, though.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: There is a motion by the -- by Commissioner Gort.
Citv ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: Move it -- second.
Chair Hardemon: And a second by Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion about the item? Any unreadiness? Hearing none, all
in favor, say --
Commissioner Suarez: It's a reso [sic].
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): It's roll call. Roll call on item FR. 2.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
FR.3 ORDINANCE First Reading
16-01212
Honorable Mayor AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Tomas Regalado 2/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENTS/PLANNING,
BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT", MORE PARTICULARLY BY
MODIFYING SECTION 2-213, ENTITLED "PILOT PROGRAM FOR
DISTRESSED DEVELOPMENT SITES", REACTIVATING THE PILOT
PROGRAM FOR EXTENDING CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS UNTILA DATE CERTAIN; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item FR.3 was continued to the October 27, 2016Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
END OF FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RESOLUTIONS
REA RESOLUTION
16-01156
Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
BY FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING,
APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S EMERGENCY
FINDING THAT IT IS MOST ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI TO
WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 18-90 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED; FURTHER APPROVING THE RETROACTIVE SELECTION OF
TRANE US, INC. FOR THE CHILLER PLANT UPGRADE PROJECTAT THE
CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTER BUILDING, FORA
Citv ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $469,386.00.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0455
Chair Hardemon: On the RE (resolution) agenda, is there any RE item that anyone would like
to remove or any type of discussion?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I believe RE. 8, there's a proposed
amendment, which I can hand out. It's being sponsored by Commissioner Gort. The proposed
amendment is to clarify that it applies not just to elected officials that are elected during a
special election, but also those that are appointed by the City Commission to fill a vacancy.
Vice Chair Russell: Just a moment.
Commissioner Gort: Let me tell you my experience, what it was. In 2010, I decided to --
Chair Hardemon: It's kind of what he had.
Commissioner Gort: -- come back and run, and it was only brand new Commissioners, they'd
only been therefor a day or two, and they made a motion that whoever wins the election in
2010, in January 2010 had to run in the next general elections and then had to run again. Sol
had three elections within a year and a half. I don't think that's fair. I didn't have any problem
with it but I don't think it's fair for anyone, because the point -- who gets elected in election to
go through all that process. I think it should be that to finish the term of the existing
replacement.
Vice Chair Russell: That's RE. 8.
Chair Hardemon: That is RE.8. So if there is a motion to approve the --
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Which are we approving; just RE. 8?
Chair Hardemon: No, no. Fin saying that there's a motion to --
Commissioner Suarez: Remaining balance.
Chair Hardemon: --approve the RE, the balance of the RE items. It would also include the
amendment or the modification to the bill -- to the resolution that Commissioner Gort just
proffered.
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Vice Chair Russell: I would like discussion on RE. 10.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Then let's remove RE. 10 from the RE agenda. So the motion would
be for the balance of the RE items, with the amendment that Commissioner Gort has proposed.
Is there a second?
City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Min: And I believe RE.9 was withdrawn, correct?
Chair Hardemon: Correct.
Commissioner Gort: RE.9 was withdrawn, yes.
Chair Hardemon: RE.5 was continued, correct.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) RE5.
Chair Hardemon: So, to clarify: RE. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; 8, with amendments. It's been moved by
Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Yep.
Chair Hardemon: Seconded by the Chair. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Gort: Let me ask a question. The one about the communications for the Police,
the helmets?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): If you pass this, they would be approved.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like to ask some question on that one.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay. Would you like to pull that item for purposes of--?
Chair Hardemon: You don't have to pull it. If you have a question about that particular item,
you can --
Commissioner Gort: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- ask it now.
Commissioner Gort: I mean, a lot of the question comes out, my understanding, it's 1,200 and
some dollars for the communication for the motorcycle police officer. Now, the question that I
have, today, you have bluetooth and you got all kinds of equipment that people believe it's --
you can buy it for a lot better price. What is it so special about this equipment? Why does it
cost so much?
Rafael Cabrera: Good afternoon, Commissioner. Deputy Chief Cabrera, City of Miami Police
Department. First and foremost, actually, this technology is -- involves wireless and Bluetooth
technology that will allow our motormen to be able to have the capacity to speak on the radio
and not lose focus on the road. The -- what we're currently using, which is outdated, is a
manual system where they have to key the mike on the bike --
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Mr. Cabrera: -- be able to talk to it, and it not only is not functional, but it's not operationally
efficient or effective. So this --
Commissioner Gort: So the different is they can -- it communicates with the -- their radio, with
the police radios?
City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Cabrera: I'm sorry, sir, I didn't hear.
Commissioner Gort: The difference that it communicates with the police radios?
Mr. Cabrera: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Cabrera: You're welcome, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further --
Commissioner Suarez: Just before we break for lunch, I just want to recognize Mayor Dietch,
from the City of Surfside.
Chair Hardemon: Oh, welcome, Mayor. Thank you very much for coming.
Commissioner Gort: Where is the Mayor? He's been hiding.
Commissioner Suarez: He's in the back there.
Chair Hardemon: He's in the back, raising his hand.
Commissioner Suarez: Paying attention.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Seeing no further discussion, no further unreadiness, all in favor of
the motion on the floor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
RE.2
RESOLUTION
16-01173
Department of
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BIDS
Procurement
RECEIVED ON JULY 26, 2016, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO.
616407, FROM THE TWO RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE VENDORS,
SUDDEN SERVICE, INC. (PRIMARY), AND NATIONAL LIFT TRUCK
SERVICE, INC. (SECONDARY), TO PROVIDE FORKLIFT AND OTHER
HYDRAULIC LIFTS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS, ON AN AS NEEDED
CONTRACTUAL BASIS, FORA PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS, WITH THE
OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEAR PERIODS;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO
THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME
OF NEED; AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL VENDORS TO BE ADDED TO THE
CONTRACT; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING ANY
AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR
SAID PURPOSE.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
RE.3
16-01208
Department of Capital
Improvement
Programs/Transportati
on
R-16-0456
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.2, please see item RE.1.
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT
("AGREEMENT") WITH CH2M HILL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. ("CH2M"), FOR
THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL
PROCUREMENT ASSISTANCE, AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
SERVICES FOR THE WAGNER CREEKAND SEYBOLD CANAL
WATERWAYS RESTORATION PROJECT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$90,000.00, THEREBY INCREASING THE CURRENT TOTALAGREEMENT
AMOUNT FROM $3,409,588.19 TO A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF
$3,499,588.19; ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR SAID INCREASE FROM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PROJECT NO.
B-50643; FURTHER AUTHORIZING A TWENTY-ONE (21) MONTH
INCREASE IN THE AGREEMENT TERM; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT,
IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0457
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.3, please see item RE.1.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.3, please see "Order of
the Day. "
REA
RESOLUTION
16-01298
0 c of the City
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
Attorney
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CONTINUE PRESENT RULE
CHALLENGE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND TO TAKE ALL FUTURE LEGALACTION
NECESSARY, INCLUDING INITIATING ANYAND ALL LITIGATION, IN LAW
OR IN EQUITY, TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE RECENTLY
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA'S HUMAN HEALTH -BASED
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0458
Citv ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.4, please see item RE. 1.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.4, please see "Order of
the Day. "
RE.5
RESOLUTION
16-00922
Department of Parks
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
and Recreation
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL
(BID) Board
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING
A/K/A MIAMI PARKING AUTHORITY ("MPA"), AN AGENCY AND
INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), FOR THE
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PARKING FACILITIES
SERVICING CITY -OWNED AND OPERATED PARKS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE
(5) YEARS, COMMENCING RETROACTIVELY ON AUGUST 1, 2016, WITH
AN OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ONE (1) ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF FIVE (5)
YEARS, FORATOTAL TERM THAT SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN (10) YEARS,
WITH THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH IN SAID
AGREEMENT; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT EITHER PARTY SHALL HAVE
THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE SAID AGREEMENTATANY TIME UPON
PROVIDING NO LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS PRIOR
NOTIFICATION OF TERMINATION IN WRITING.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item RE. 5 was continued to the October 27, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.5, please see "Order of
the Day. "
RE.6
RESOLUTION
16-00948
Wynwood Business
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
Improvement District
EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
(BID) Board
AREA KNOWN AS THE WYNWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
('BID") TO MATCH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION DISTRICT - 1 AND AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FORA PERIOD OF TEN (10)
YEARS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A MAJORITY OF AFFECTED
PROPERTY OWNERS; PROVIDING FOR THE NATURE AND ESTIMATE OF
BENEFITS TO BE PROVIDED; PROVIDING DETAILS OF ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES, PAYMENTS, AND STATUTORY LIENS; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICE; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER, THE CITY CLERK, THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, THE
WYNWOOD BID EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND ALL OTHER NECESSARY
CITY OFFICIALS AND WYNWOOD BID BOARD MEMBERS, AFTER
CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO UNDERTAKE ALL
Citv ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
ACTIONS AND PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT
OF THIS RESOLUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 170, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Comrnissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0459
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.6, please see item RE.1.
RE.7
RESOLUTION
16-01258
District 4-
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING GOVERNOR
Commissioner Francis
RICK SCOTT AND THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO AMEND FLORIDA
Suarez
SECTION 506.5131, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO PROVIDE MUNICIPALITIES
THEAUTHORITYTO REGULATE LOST, STOLEN ORABANDONED
SHOPPING CARTS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT
A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS STATED HEREIN.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Comrnissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0460
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE. 7, please see item RE. 1.
RE.8
RESOLUTION
16-01201
District I -
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S),
Commissioner Wifretlo
APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE A
(Willy) Gort
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CHARTER"), KNOWN AS
CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1; AMENDING SECTION 12, ENTITLED
"FILLING VACANCIES FOR MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION," TO PROVIDE
THAT A PERSON APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OR A
CANDIDATE ELECTED INA SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FILLING A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
SHALL SERVE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE UNEXPIRED TERM;
CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 WILL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE
HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017; DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY
CLERKAS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND
RECORDS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO
THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL
ELECTION; PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS
Citv ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
RESOLUTION.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0461
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.8, please see item RE.].
RE.9
RESOLUTION
16-01303
District 5-
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY
Commissioner Keon
ADMINISTRATION TO AMEND THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AND RULES OF
Hardemon
PROCEDURE OF THE CITY COMMISSION AGENDA, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 2-33(c)(1) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), TO ALLOW ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK ON ANY MATTER THAT MAY BE ACTED UPON BY THE CITY
RE.10
COMMISSION AFTER THE MAYORAL VETOES AGENDA SECTION HAS
BEEN CONSIDERED AND PRIOR TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE
REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATION TO AMEND THE CITY COMMISSION AGENDA
REQUIRING THE CITY COMMISSION TO VOTE ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
SECTION AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HAS CONCLUDED;
FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO AMEND THE CITY
COMMISSION AGENDA REQUIRING THAT AT LEAST ONE (1) OF THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD FOR PROPOSED ORDINANCES THAT CHANGE
THE ACTUAL LIST OF PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, OR PROHIBITED USES
WITHIN A ZONING CATEGORY, OR CHANGE THE ACTUAL ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION OF A PARCEL OR PARCELS OF LAND INVOLVING TEN (10)
CONTIGUOUS ACRES OR MORE BE HELD AFTER 5:00 P.M., UNLESS THE
CITY COMMISSION, BY A MAJORITY PLUS ONE (1) VOTE, ELECTS TO
CONDUCT THE HEARING AT ANOTHER TIME OF THE DAY; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 2-33(j) OF THE CITY CODE TO ELIMINATE THE "CONSENT
AGENDA" FROM THE CITY COMMISSION AGENDA; APPROVING THAT THE
CITY COMMISSION SHALL CONSIDER ALL ITEMS IN A GIVEN SECTION OF
THE AGENDA IN ONE (1) VOTE UNLESS A SPECIFIC ITEM IS REQUESTED
TO BE PULLED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION; FURTHER DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO AMEND ALLAPPLICABLE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY MANUALS TO COMPORT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
RESOLUTION.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
WITHDRAWN PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.9, please see "Order of
the Day. "
RESOLUTION
Citv ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
16-01304
District 5 -
Commissioner Keon
Hardemon
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CHARTER"), FOR
CONSIDERATION AT THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD
CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2017, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL
OF THE ELECTORATE, TO AMEND SECTION 4 OF THE CHARTER,
ENTITLED "FORM OF GOVERNMENT; NOMINATION AND ELECTION," TO
PROVIDE A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR CANDIDATES PRIOR TO
QUALIFYING FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR AND OFFICE OF CITY
COMMISSIONER.
DISCUSSED
Note for the Record: A motion was made by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Chair Hardemon,
to pass Item RE. 10, which FAILED by the following vote: AYES: Gort, Hardemon /NOES:
Carollo, Russell /ABSENT: Suarez.
Chair Hardemon: Next order of business from the agenda plasma would be RE. 10. Let me find
my way to it.
Commissioner Gort: It's yours.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, it's mine. Members of the board, RE. 10 is a resolution of the Miami
City Commission directing the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Charter of the
City of Miami, Florida, as amended, for consideration at the special election to be held
concurrently with the general municipal election scheduled for November 7, 2017, proposing,
upon approval of the electorate, to amend Section 4 of the Charter, entitled, "Form of
Government, Nomination and Election, " to provide a residency requirement for candidates
prior to qualifying for the office of Mayor and the office of City Commissioner. To put things in
laymen's terms, currently, right now, if you want to run for any of your individual offices for
City of Miami Commissioner, you have to have been a resident in that district for one year.
There is no requirement that you are a resident of the City of Miami for any number of years.
And unlike, for instance, in the County; in the County, you have to be a resident, I believe, of
Miami -Dade Countyfor, I think, three years; and then a resident of the district that you're
running for, for, I think, one year. And so, here, basically, what we're doing is saying, for the
Office of Mayor and for the office of Commissioner that you have some stake in your community
for at least three years to run for office in the City of Miami -- well, three years for the City of
Miami; one year, as it already is, for your district.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. So a question: Does that mean that at any given time,
three years; or three years prior to the actual election date?
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: Or qualifying date or --?
Chair Hardemon: Just like in the County, it'll be three years before election involved in this.
Commissioner Carollo: So for the immediate previous years, you must have lived in the City of
City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Miami in order to --?
Chair Hardemon: I believe that's the way that it would be required, yes.
Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): That's the way that -- Remember, this is a resolution to bring
back the actual ballot question language for you to approve, and the way that it's considered is
three years in the City; one of those three years in the district, the preceding three.
Commissioner Carollo: So the preceding three years. So if you lived for -- let's say you grew
up in the City of Miami --
Ms. Mendez: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: -- move --
Ms. Mendez: 30 years, you move away --
Commissioner Carollo: And then come back, you couldn't --
Ms. Mendez: Arguably not.
Commissioner Carollo: -- unless you have spent the last three years. Okay. Question: And I
just -- I was just talking to our City Clerk, because, as most of you know, Legistar doesn't go as
far as -- any farther back than 2003, and I wanted to get the research, but I believe that when
we first discussed it -- and not "we"; it was another Commission -- redistricting and Executive
Mayor form of government, it -- the question was raised as far as could it be two years City
residence, and at that time, City Attorney Quinn Jones stated that he could not defend that; that
he believed that that would be unconstitutional. So can we do that research and go from there?
And you're saying the County's doing it, but I'm going back in history, and I'm pretty
comfortable that that occurred.
Ms. Mendez: I think probably there's a difference -- let's say if there is a qualification period
right now, before this starts, agree that, probably, you could not be precluded, or, you know, not
let someone who just moved into the district the year before run, and that's probably what the
opinion was, but if this is the law going forward, then that could be allowed. But we'll do --
we'll look at the opinions, past opinions, and we'll make sure that whatever is brought forward
complies with that opinion.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, because I'm pretty comfortable that it's on the record, and I
think, also, Vice Chairman Russell was actually the one who pulled this item, just as a FYI (for
your information), so I don't know if he wants to discuss anything on this.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. So the -- like the City Attorney stated, this doesn't change the law,
whatsoever.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood.
Chair Hardemon: This just brings this back, some language for us to consider.
Commissioner Gort: First reading, I move it.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved -- well --
Commissioner Carollo: Well, it's a resolution.
City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Oh, it's a resolution.
Chair Hardemon: Right, right.
Commissioner Gort: Oh, yeah, it's a resolution.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Gort; seconded by the Chairman.
Any further discussion about it?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, again, I know Commissioner Russell was the one who
pulled the item, so I would like to hear if he had any issues with it, which, obviously, he had
some issue with it, because he pulled the item. Could we just table it till he comes back?
Later...
Chair Hardemon: Calling back RE. 10. There's a motion on the floor, seconded by the Chair.
We're in discussion now for RE. 10, and we're awaiting your input.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. All right. I apologize. Yeah, I have questions about this one.
This is about candidates who run for office. Currently, if I'm not mistaken, we have a
requirement that they live in the Cityfor one year and in the district for one year; is that
correct?
Chair Hardemon: Is it the City or is it just the district?
Ms. Mendez: Right.
Chair Hardemon: Well --
Ms. Mendez: You have to be an electorate --
Chair Hardemon: --City Commissioner.
Ms. Mendez: -- of the Cityfor one year, and then live in the district for one year. So itis not a
total of two; it's subsumed. So --
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. So being in the district, obviously --
Ms. Mendez: It's one, right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- it's one year. And so the change that's being recommended is to add two
more years to the Cityportion of that --
Ms. Mendez: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- requirement.
Ms. Mindez: So you have to be an electorate for three years; and one of those years, you have
to live in the district that you're running in. Obviously, for Mayor, you just have to be three
City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
years.
Vice Chair Russell: Right, right. I mean, I wanted to open it up for discussion, because I'm
actually quite comfortable with the one-year requirement, that someone can live here and
understand our situation and, you know, be a good potential civil servant after that. You can
learn everything there -- you know, about your district and the geography and the
demographics and everything, and if you don't, if you're not up to it, you won't get elected.
Requiring a three-year requirement is a bit tough for those who might move to our City and
want to have public service, and I think that would exclude potentially a lot of people, so that's
my concern on this one. I don't know how the others feel.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: I have to tell you, I think when the district was created, it was kind of bad
for the City, but everybody wanted to do it, and we have it done. First time I ran, it was
citywide, and I believe that it was very important to the people to be here three years, because
not only you have to worry about your district, but you have to know how your district is going
to affect the rest of the City of Miami. A lot of times, we take motions in here in one district
without really looking into the impact that it's going to create to the City as a whole. So I think
being here three years, at least they'll have a better knowledge of what the City is all about, not
only in their district, but the whole City.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. I don't know if Mr. -- if Commissioner Russell was listening in
the back. Commissioner Russell, I brought up the issue that back in -- I don't know if it was in
'97 or when it was, but whenever the City went from running citywide for Commissioners to
district and executive form of Mayor, they had that discussion regarding term -- well, actually,
living requirements. And at that time, it is my belief that City Attorney Quinn Jones opined that
he felt it would be unconstitutional for two years. So here, we're asking for three years, so we
haven't gone back to see the exact minutes, but again, I'd ask the City Attorney if she feels that
it would be unconstitutional, or with regards to the former opinion, I would like to make sure
that -- where we are with it. And by the way, at the same time, realistically, if the electorate
feels like someone hasn't lived there long enough or doesn't know our City, they just won't vote
them in; not to mention, again, someone could, you know, live in the City of Miami, grow up in
the City of Miami, go away to school, and then come back, and not be able to run because he
hasn't -- he or she hasn't been here for three years.
Vice Chair Russell: IfTm honest, when I ran for office, I had very little civic experience before
that, politically or otherwise. I did live in my district for 15 years, but to the political process, I
hadn't been here even one year. And, you know, I wouldn't want to keep people out ofpolitics
who want to get involved, because of that requirement. Like you said, if they're not qualified
and they don't know the information, they're going to get outed pretty quick in a good race. But
I don't want to limit, you know, people who want to come in. I mean, there's a lot of strength in
incumbency, and we have a tendency to want to protect that, but I really encourage and
welcome people getting involved in politics and I think the one-year requirement is quite
sufficient, and I don't think you see something that -- quite that stringent in other levels of
government, you know, Senate ofces and such. So --
Chair Hardemon: In Miami -Dade County, there's a current three-year requirement. I ran for
Commissioner in Miami -Dade County. There is also, I believe, a one-year requirement for the
district that you're running for, besides the three-year requirement in the actual County itself.
If anyone felt, in the spirit of -- If you felt that having a requirement to live in the district for a
certain amount of time and to live in the County or the Cityfor a certain amount of time was
City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
restrictive and it kept people from running, then you would -- then you should be a proponent of
not having any time limit at all; that anyone who moved into the City of Miami should be able
to run, because then that would be the ultimate level of believing that if you are in a place, then
you should be able to represent that place, no matter what. But by having a requirement in the
first place, you're saying that there is some reasoning --
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: -- some logic to actually having -- have lived in your communityfor some
time before you desire to represent that community. And so, I think that, like Commissioner
Gort does, having a requirement that matches the County, where you're living within the City of
Miami for three years and that's placed before you choose to run for elected office is good; it's
not restrictive in the terms of not allowing people to run. People -- if you look at the people
who have run in our office, even in your race, I mean, they all have lived within the City of
Miami for a significant amount of time. I was one of those individuals that went up to school
and came back, and I still -- even if it wasn't a one-year requirement, I fulfilled the three-year
requirement. But I'm not doing this just for me. I'm doing this for the sake of everything that's
happening within the City of Miami, and you watch so many residents come before us and the
first thing they say is, 7 been in this communityfor 15 years. This person has only been here
for one year, and the nerve of them to want to change my community. " You heard the Grovites
today say, "We want to conserve our district. We don't want any building happening within our
district, because I've been in this home for this amount of time, and I want it to remain the
same. " And then in other parts of our community where people have been therefor a very long
time, it's unfortunate that those types of changes that some Grovites fight for today, and this --
and I'll give you a very specific example. This denial of the plat, you know, we watched five
homes be denied that were going to be potentially $2 million homes in an area that has homes
that are smaller than that or the lot sizes are smaller than that, but in a place like Overtown,
someone comes and they say, "Well, I want to put a large facility that's going to bring an influx
of 300 people, " and it's okay; it's okay there. And so, you know, to me, that makes it very
difficult to swallow. So I think that the more people that you have on this board that are --that
have been around their communityfor enough time where they understand the issues and they
understand the City as a whole, I think the better, and so that's why I proposed bringing this
language where the City Attorney will bring back language that we find to be acceptable. You
know, this is a -- this is not putting it on the ballot, this is bringing back some language for us
to consider, and that's what Id like to do.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: There is another concern, I guess, that we haven't spoken about, and I
think it is legitimate, that you don't want somebody shopping districts, to go and run a race
where they think they have the best chance, just for the political timing of it or where they see a
weak candidate that they can go after, or something like that. And I think that's a very
legitimate reason to have some limitation there in terms of a time buffer; that it's not just -- you
know, like I know some types of races -- not at the City level -- but you can actually run in a --
you don't even have to move there until after you win, and I think that's --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: --I absolutely agree with you; that's not a good idea. But 1 think a
one-year buffer is enough to keep that from happening. Someone would have to really plan
ahead, and enough so that they actually commit to move to the district for a year, and I think
that's enough commitment that they should be allowed to run.
City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So this is onlv -- this is a -- look, I'm not going to continue this item.
If you want to vote it down, you vote it down. You know, you vote your conscience. I'm not
going to bring up -- I'm not going to belabor the point about anything. This is a very simple
resolution. It asks for a --the City Attorney to draft a resolution. I think this is the most
transparent way of doing it, since we love to use the word, "transparency, " to ensure, but we
don't have -- I didn't have to bring it out this way. I could have asked her to draft something
that we could have discussed at that point, but here we are today. So there was a motion, there
was a second. If there's no further discussion, I'd like to consider the vote. All in favor, say
aye.
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
ChairHardemon: All against?
Vice Chair Russell: No.
Commissioner Carollo: No.
ChairHardemon: Motion fails.
END OF RESOLUTIONS
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSIONS
2:00 P.M. TIME CERTAIN
ACA
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
16-01316a
0 ce of the City
UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
Attorney
THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL
ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION,
CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE
PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF 1000 BRICKELL, LTD., F/K/A 1000
BRICKELL, INC., AND KAI PROPERTIES, LTD., V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE
NO. 14-11755 CA 23, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. THIS PRIVATE
MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M. (ORAS SOON
THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND
CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE
ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN
KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND
COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND
FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO; THE CITY
ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A.
GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL
LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER GREEN AND DIVISION CHIEF FOR LAND
USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL SUAREZ-RIVAS. A CERTIFIED COURT
REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY
TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR
Citv ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON
CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILLANNOUNCE THE
TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: Item AC.1 was deferred to the September 29, 2016 Special City
Commission Meeting.
AC.2
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
16-01317a
0 ce of the City
UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
Attorney
THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL
ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION,
CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE
PENDING LITIGATION CASES: VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF
MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-200 AP, BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLATE
DIVISION; VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI AND NATIONAL
MARINE MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION, CASE NO. 3D15-2824,
BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AND VILLAGE OF KEY
BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-02997 CA 09, BEFORE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M. (ORAS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE
COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE
APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON
HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS
WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE
CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO; THE CITYATTORNEY, VICTORIA
MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L.
MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL
SUAREZ-RIVAS, AND ASSISTANT CITYATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY
AND FORREST L. ANDREWS. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE
PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND
THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF
THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION
MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: Item AC.2 was deferred to the September 29, 2016 Special City
Commission Meeting.
END OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSIONS
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
BCA RESOLUTION
City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
16-01232
Office of the City
Clerk
BC.2
16-01269
Office of the City
Clerk
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RATIFYING THE
AUGUST 23, 2016 ELECTION RESULTS OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS
ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE OVERTOWN ADVISORY
BOARD/OVERTOWN COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR TERMS AS
DESIGNATED HEREIN.
APPOINTEES:
Mae Christian
Nicole Crooks
Anitrice "Joy" McKinnis
Reginald Munnings
La'shown Naylor
NOMINATED BY:
Elected
Elected
Elected
Elected
Elected
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Russell and Suarez
R-16-0462
Chair Hardemon: Boards and Committees.
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC 1, Commissioners, is a resolution ratifying the
August 23, 2016 elections of the Overtown Advisory Oversight Community Oversight Board.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE OVERTOWN ADVISORY
BOARD/OVERTOWN COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR TERMS AS
DESIGNATED HEREIN.
APPOINTEES: NOMINATED BY:
City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Irby McKnight
Berlinda Faye -Dixon
Jean Fincher
Schevette Glinton
Mayor Tomas Regalado
Chair Keon Hardemon
Chair Keon Hardemon
Chair Keon Hardemon
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
R-16-0463
Chair Hardemon: BC.2.
Nicole N Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): 2 is the appointment of members to the Overtown
Advisory Board. Mayor Regalado would like to reappoint Irby McKnight. Chair Hardemon
will be appointing Berlinda Faye Dixon, Jean Fincher, and Schevette Glinton .
Commissioner Carollo: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's properly moved.
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motionpasses.
Ms. Ewan: Thank you.
END OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DIA DISCUSSION ITEM
16-00593
District 2 - DISCUSSION REGARDING NIGHTLY BED AVAILABILITY FOR HOMELESS
Commissioner Ken RESIDENTS.
Russell
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: Moving on to discussion items, D1. 1.
Vice Chair Russell: We'll pass on this one. This was the one thatl'd asked for, butl -- I'm
sorry. I mentioned to you that I spoke with James Bernat earlier, and we're satisfied with the
Citv ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
answer. Thank you. I meant --
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): He told me, so we're --
Vice Chair Russell: I appreciate it.
Mr. Alfonso: -- done with the item.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Alfonso: Thank you.
DI.2 DISCUSSION ITEM
16-01305
District 2- DISCUSSION REGARDING SELECTING AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY TO
Commissioner Ken STUDY THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED FROM
Russell CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA MENDEZ, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT, ON THE PROPOSED BATTERSEA PLAT.
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: The next item, the Vice Chairman wants to have a discussion item -- I can
never find it. I try to look at this agenda plasma.
Vice Chair Russell: Sorry. It was put into the district discussion items and that --
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: -- rather than the regular discussion items.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, but -- and I will say, I mean, ifI understand, this is concerning the
CityAttorney?
Vice Chair Russell: City Attorney, correct.
Chair Hardemon: So according to parliamentary procedure, what I'd like for you to do is to
give very brief remarks before you move into your motion, because I think all of us have had
discussion.
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: And I want to ensure that we're not having along discussion about
something that there is not a will of the body to move into that discussion. So you were
proceeding with arguments at your last meeting. Please make very brief arguments, your
motion, the second, and so that we can go on to the discussion. You can put forth all of the
evidence that you would like.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Is the motion a discussion? Because we have a discussion item already
in our agenda.
Chair Hardemon: What we're going to do --
City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: We moved that discussion item to now.
Chair Hardemon: -- he wanted to move the discussion item to now --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- after the Battersea Woods.
Commissioner Carollo: So you need a motion to move the discussion item to now?
Chair Hardemon: No. I'm just moving it with the will of the body, if there was no objection to
it.
Commissioner Carollo: No.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Commissioner Carollo: No objection. So this is a --
Chair Hardemon: So we're having the discussion now. But why --the reason I'm saying this is
this: I will not, as Chairman, allow any attorney to put forth a plethora of information about
another attorney -- one that is especially the Attorney that I employ -- without having the will of
this body have that discussion. And so, I'm saying it to say that there is a -- it is a privilege for
an attorney to have --to be apart of the profession. It is something that you spend a lot of
time, you -- earning that right, that response -- well, that responsibility. And now that you have
it, I think that we should, as a board, as a City, should take it very seriously and protect that
right or that privilege that we have. As attorneys, we should protect our Attorney's privilege to
practice in the law. And I don't want to just muddy the record, full of accusations against an
attorney, who would like to defend their self, I'm sure, for the sake of a motion that may have a
second and may not have a second. So all I'm asking is that --
Vice Chair Russell: Understood.
Chair Hardemon: -- we have a motion and a second so that we can move into a meaningful
discussion, because I'm sure that this is going to be something that is accusatory in nature, and
I want people to have the opportunity to defend themselves, that's all.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to start by apologizing first to Victoria for the tone of which this
has taken, and I take responsibilityfor that with the way I brought this in the original meeting
and the press that that has created and it has gotten people saying some things about character,
and that -- I regret that. This is a very simple issue about process and documents. And I
apologized also to the Mayor if making such -- You know, what this has become is a little
embarrassing for our City, and the public nature with which I have brought this -- I don't know
any other way to do it. And the transparency, like I said, has always been my priority, but I do
apologize for the tone things have taken. It's gotten difficult, because this is very personal. We
all have a relationship with our Attorney, and we all, including myself, do like her, and have
enjoyed working with her. I don't want to create a circus further than I already have. I've
thought about it over this last week, and I don't believe we need a independent attorney to
weigh in this -- on this. We have two attorneys on our dais. We have the facts before us. And
City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
any attorney, if I'm not mistaken, that works for us as a Commission has to answer through
Victoria. So in this, we're making a circular problem, as it stands. I sent a memo -- two memos
on Friday to the Commissioners and the Mayor and Victoria, pretty much laying out the case; a
lengthy one regarding the issues on the plat, and a very simple one regarding the public records
request. I believe that you will have time, if you haven't already, to look through that; after
which, we can have a very simple, cerebral and calm discussion about that and come to a
decision amongst ourselves, but that is not necessarily to take up our whole day of an agenda.
I would like to move that we schedule a special Commission meeting to deal with our City
Attorney or to discuss our City Attorney -- leave it as simple as that -- without a motion or
accusation, for one week from now, pending all of our schedules, as a special Commission
meeting, no independent attorney. The City Attorney, she has requested an ethics investigation
or opinion on what has happened so far, and Ido welcome that. I don't think that our decision
is contingent on that. The case that I will make before you will be about my comfort in working
with our City Attorney, what has happened even since then, and the work environment we need
to have, as we are her client. And so, I will be looking for your support in that when that time
comes, and so that's my motion.
Chair Hardemon: There's a motion.
Commissioner Suarez: Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I have no objection to having a special meeting to discuss this.
We have to have some finality on this issue, you know, to move on and to move forward. I think
there's two things that you said that -- aside from the apologies that I think is very, you know,
humble and very big of you to do in both circumstances -- I think there's two things here that
sort of resonated with me as Ilistened to the whole discussion from all the constituents and from
yourself. The first is that people do make mistakes. And clearly, mistakes were made in this
case, and I think they weren't made by one person; they were made by a multiple -- a multitude
ofpeople. And thankfully, I think the decision that we made today in part rectifies that mistake.
I think we have to -- There were some -- some of the people who testified here today talked
about some ambiguities in the NCD -3. You know, one of the things -- we didn't get into it on
the prior matter, because I think you established a record, and I didn't really want to muddy the
record. But the middle word for "NCD" is "conservation. " And I think that's the objective of
the overlay district and I think that's what everyone's expectation is who lives in Coconut
Grove. And so, I think we have to make sure that our actual laws are implementing the intent of
the district, which is to conserve the way that it looks and feels. I think much of the testimony
here was about -- I particularly like the one about -- someone who said that it's five degrees
cooler in Coconut Grove than it is -- and it probably is. And my district, which starts at U.S. 1,
doesn't have the canopy going north on 22nd Avenue, for example, that Coconut Grove has.
One of the projects that I've been pushing is a road diet on 22nd Avenue, so that we can get a
better tree canopy north of U.S.] that seems to be blocked out by the Metrorail. What I'm
getting at here is that we got the right result today. I think the residents, who have a natural --
at times -- skepticism about the effectiveness of government and whether government is working
for them got the sense that we got the right result here today. And, certainly, there was some
mistakes made, and we need to get better; not only in terms of our laws, but in terms of the way
that we approach these processes, because some of the mistakes that were made are not
reversible, as you've said, and some of them potentially are. So I just want to give that
discussion context, because I think it's the fair thing to do.
Chair Hardemon: Currently, we have a motion that's on the floor. Is there a second to the
motion?
City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I think I seconded the motion.
Commissioner Gort: He seconded.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: He shows support. Are we going to -- Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: You know, it was mentioned a lot, people -- I have dealt with attorneys all
my life, and you can have five attorneys, then you have five different opinions. But the
loopholes, that's something they really need to look into it, because we have laws, but
sometimes, there's a loophole, and this is what we got to look at; make sure that any ordinance
that we have, checkfor the loophole. Like, I just heard about going to the County and going
through a process, and everything is legal. So the people are doing it by using a loophole. We
need to work on those things.
Commissioner Suarez: Agreed.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a particular day that we want to have this meeting scheduled for?
Vice Chair Russell: The morning of Thursday, the 29th, would that work?
Commissioner Gort: It's fine with me.
Chair Hardemon: So the motion is -- I mean, is that request --?
Vice Chair Russell: A special Commission meeting at 9 a.m., on Thursday, September 29,
regarding our City Attorney.
Chair Hardemon: Does the seconder agree to that?
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, I can do it at that time, yeah.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So it's been properly moved and seconded that we have a special City
Commission meeting on the 29th. Is that enough time for -- okay, advertisement. Good. Is
there any further discussion about that? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye. "
Vice Chair Russell: Aye.
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
Commissioner Carollo: Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Against? No one against. Motion passes.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): And my apologies, Chair, but just for the record, so when I do
notice the meeting, it'll simply be to discuss the City Attorney?
Chair Hardemon: Correct.
Mr. Hannon: Understood. Thank you.
(DI.2) RESOLUTION
City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
16-01305a
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2016, AT 9:00
A.M., AT MIAMI CITY HALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez
Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon
R-16-0446
D1.3
DISCUSSION ITEM
16-01055
District 4-
UPDATE ON MOU BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Commissioner Francis
REGARDING TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ON NON -ARTERIAL ROADS
Suarez
DISCUSSED
ChairHardemon: D1.2 has been discussed, I believe. DL3.
Vice Chair Russell: Was this Commissioner Suarez?
Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): This is Commissioner Suarez' update on the MOLL
(Memorandum of Understanding) and non -arterial roads, but I don't know if it was his
presentation or Jeovanny's presentation, so I guess we have to wait.
ChairHardemon: Was it his or yours? Was it the Commissioner's or yours?
Unidentified Speaker: I think that's --
Jeovanny Rodriguez: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jeovanny Rodriguez, director of
Capital Improvements. Commissioner, the discussion was his. I'm here to answer any
questions that he may have regarding this item.
Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, can you read into the record -- well, I'm sorry. Well --
Vice Chair Russell: Discussion item.
Later...
Vice Chair Russell: Where's the Chair?
Commissioner Gort: You're it.
Vice Chair Russell: Am I the Chair?
Commissioner Gort: You're it.
Unidentified Speaker: You're it.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Did you want to go to the MOU on --the discussion on the traffic
Citv ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
MOU, Commissioner Suarez?
Commissioner Suarez: That would be fine.
Vice Chair Russell: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: So I had been negotiating with the County for many, many years -- more
years than I'd like to admit -- the attached MOU, which allows the City now to install traffic
circles, speed humps, historic name signs, end street, pedestrian crossing signs, raised
intersections, and I just wanted to call a couple of things to attention. One is an FDOT
(Florida Department of Transportation) study, which shows that on intersections where there
are modern roundabouts or road diets, it's -- there's a 90 percent decrease in fatal crash
accidents; a 75 percent decrease in serious injuries; a 35 percent decrease in total crashes, and
it's 75 percent more efficient than signals. And road diets, which is one of the things that I
proposed on 22nd Avenue, are proven to reduce total crashes by 40 percent, according to their
study, which is included as a backup. The other thing that I'm working on is a reso to try to
reduce the speed limits in residential neighborhoods, non -arterial, so I'd asked the
Administration to prepare a resolution, in conjunction with the County, modeled on -- or an
ordinance, whatever -- whichever one of the two it has to be -- modeled on what Coral Gables
just did. There was an article in the newspaper on Coral Gables successfully reducing -- I know
that we've talked about it, and I've asked that they -- when they -- once they have it -- it's a
resolution, right?
Ms. Mendez: Well, the legislation, we were working on it for October 13 --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Ms. Mendez: -- based on what you requested.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And it was going to be a resolution, I believe -- right? --
because I think they passed a resolution.
Ms. Mendez: Right. We were either going to -- it depends -- we were either going to pass a
resolution or work on coding it, so we had to see which way we had to go since --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Ms. Mendez: -- we had to look at our Code, based on that.
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Ms. Mendez: But whatever legislation it is --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Ms. Mendez: -- it'll be on for October 13.
Commissioner Suarez: Perfect. Thank you. That's all.
END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
PART B: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Commissioner Suarez: Now PZ (Planning & Zoning)? Are we on PZ?
City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Madam City Attorney, looks like we can now move on to the PZ
order of the day.
Ms. Mendez: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. PZ items shall proceed according to Section 7.1.4 of the
Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak 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 parte communications, pursuant to Florida State 286.0115 and Section 7.1.4.5 of the
Miami 21 Code. Any person may be heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not
more than two minutes by -- on any proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by
the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard
maybe at such later date before the City Commission takes action on such proposition. The
Chairman will advise the public when the public may have the opportunity to address the City
Commission during the public comment period. When addressing the City Commission, the
member of the public must first state their name, their address, and what item will be spoken
about. A copy of the agenda titles will be available at the podium for your ease of reference.
Staff will then briefly present each item to be heard. For applications requiring City
Commission approval, the applicant will then present its application or request to the City
Commission. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation, the City Commission may
proceed to its deliberation and decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an
evidentiary hearing on the record. For appeals, the appellant will present its appeal to the City
Commission, followed by the appellee. Staff will be allowed to make any recommendation they
have. The order of presentation shall be as described in the City Code and Miami 21 Code.
The City of Miami requires that any person requesting action by the City Commission must
disclose before the hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold
objection to the requested action, pursuant to City Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to
the City Commissioners that have not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of
the agenda materials will be entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. Thank
you.
Mr. Hannon: Chair, ifI may?
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Francisco, I know there were some items that needed to be -- you know,
I know you want to swear people in -- but I know there are some items that you wanted to be
continued, so can you identify what those items are?
Francisco Garcia: Yes, sir, happy to report on those. Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning
director, for the record. We have presently the following items proposed to be continued. I
know that some of these, if not all of these, are actually represented by, in some instances,
attorneys or the applicant, and so I would invite any applicants that are affected and do not
wish these items to be continued to please step up and advise. The first item that we propose to
be continued indefinitely is item PZ.1. There are also the three following items: PZs.2, 3, and
4, which we believe are ready to be continued, and I would propose indefinitely, but if the
applicants are here, I'd like to hear from them, as well, on that. PZs.5 and 6, we are going to
request, perhaps as part of a separate motion, that they be remanded to the Planning, Zoning &
Appeals Board, and I'm happy to cover that in further detail. I know the applicant is here and
agrees with that. And finally, item PZ 12, which is a City application for an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance, we propose to be continued to October 27. With that said, I'll caption it in
the following way: PZs.1, 2, 3, and 4 to be continued indefinitely. That means to be continued
for six months or until they are ready, if it is prior to those six months.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry; 2, 3, and 4, as well, indefinitely?
Mr. Garcia: 1, 2, 3, and 4; I'm sorry ifI didn't say that. P2s.5 and 6 to be remanded to the
City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
PZAB, and I'll defer to the City Attorney whether that needs a separate motion or not.
Ms. Mendez: Yes, please.
Mr. Garcia: My apologies. So strike that, please. And item PZ. 12 to be continued to the
meeting of October 27.
Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, are you saying that we can't make a motion to
continue indefinitely 1, 2, 3, 4; remand 5 and 6; and continue item 127
Ms. Mendez: If you present it as articulately as that, fine. I just like when they're, you know,
said differently, but it's -- you described it correctly, so that's fine.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any other item that any of the board members wish to continue?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: I had mentioned this earlier that I may want to defer PZ. 14, and I do
want to defer PZ. 14 until the second meeting in October.
Hoffs Hernandez: I'm here on PZ. 14. Correct. I got notice two days ago that you had to file
my -- as a lobbyist, and I sent in my application yesterday with the check. I'm scheduled to take
the class on the 13th. So Rosa from your office told me that it'd be up to the Commission
whether I could present my case today or we'll roll it over after I finish the ethics course.
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record, please?
Mr. Hernandez: Sorry?
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record?
Mr. Hernandez: Hoss Hernandez, on behalf ofJose and Rosa Montes; PZ item number 14.
Ms. Mendez: And could you speak closer into the microphone? I'm sorry.
Mr. Hernandez: I'm sorry. Hoss Hernandez, on behalf of Jose and Rosa Montes; PZ number
14.
Chair Hardemon: Counselor, did you have something that you wanted to input?
Melissa Tapanes Llahues: Yes, Chairman. My name is Melissa Tapanes, with the law firm of
Bercow, Radell and Fernandez. On PZ item 2, we would ask for the -- any deferral by the
Commissioner of PZ item 2 be taken separately. There are a couple items that need to be
discussed; housekeeping items.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia, I was just curious why we were looking for indefinite deferral
on 2, 3, and 4. I was probably going to look to bring them back in the next Commission
meeting.
City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Garcia: Fair enough. My reasoning for that, sir, is that if the items were ready to proceed
before that, then that could always be done; however, from my vantage point, I did not foresee
the items needing addressing to be completed before that timeframe. That said, we certainly
are not in opposition to continuing them to a date before the six months.
Vice Chair Russell: Are there other issues that we, as a City, need to work out that would keep
them from being ready within the next two weeks?
Mr. Garcia: In terms of readiness for consideration, they would be, in principle, ready today.
There are attending factors that we are considering; namely, the resolution of certain
right-of-way restrictions pertaining to the off ramp from the Julia Tuttle Causeway that ideally
would be resolved prior to their hearing, but if that's not possible, then we can also move
forward before that.
Vice Chair Russell: To give them a chance, I'd rather defer 2, 3, and 4 to the next Commission
meeting; not the next Planning & Zoning, but two weeks from now.
Mr. Garcia: October 27.
Vice Chair Russell: And if we have to, defer past that because of any unreadiness, but I believe
Ms. Tapanes wants to speak to that.
Mr. Garcia: Fair enough.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Hannon: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Can you read -- swear everyone in?
Mr. Hannon: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you'll be speaking on any of the
remaining Planning & Zoning items on today's agenda, 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 issues.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're very welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, I am now opening up the public
comment section of the Planning & Zoning hearing. Public comment is for any item that is left
on the agenda, which will be PZ. 7, PZ. 8, PZ. 9, PZ. 10, PZ. 11, PZ. 13, PZ. 15, and PZ. 16. If you
have come today to speak on any of the PZ items, this is the time for you to come forward to the
lectern. You have two minutes to address the City Commission. Please indicate your name,
your address, and what item it is that you are speaking upon. So I'll reiterate, this is the public
comment section for our Planning & Zoning Hearing section of this agenda. You're recognized,
ma'am.
Danielle Lee: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Danielle Lee. I am a here, part of the Buena
Vista Stakeholders, talking about PZ.7 and 8, for the rezoning at 4201 Northwest 2nd. I'm here
because my community needs jobs. They're not trying to set a precedent to rezone all the
commercial property there; it's about growth in the community. We have many idle hands
City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
walking around, and we need jobs that people can walk to, jobs that people can bike to, and so
I please ask that you approve the rezoning. Thank you.
Amir Williams: Good afternoon. My name is Amir Williams, and I'm a long-time member of
District 5, and I'm speaking in behalf of PZ. 7 and PZ. 8. That's the property on 42nd and
Northwest 2nd Avenue. I'm also a member of the Buena Vista Stakeholders. I'm one of the
board members. And the owners of this property, they've been very transparent with the
community. They came and they listened to our concerns, and they drafted some resolve in
their covenant, and we respect that, and we do need some growth in that area. And also, on a
side note, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you coming and speaking to our community, and your
ideas are very progressive, and I was proud of the steps that you're taking in our community,
and thank you for hearing me.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir.
Carmen Ramos -Watson: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Carmen Ramos -Watson. I
am of 54 Northwest 40th Street, and I am a proud member of the community since -- 45 years
now my family has lived on 39th Street, and I grew up in that neighborhood, and we've had a
home on 40th Street for over 30 years. And I think today, when I come to you as somebody who
grew up here and wanted to continually see my neighborhood better off, with opportunities of
jobs, for -- with opportunities for small businesses, like the ones that we have coming on 42nd
Street that we support that. I, too, echo that the work that they have done to connect with
community, to work with community, so that this reflects the needs of the community, and not
something imposed on community, I think is really important, and I value it very much. And so,
I would say that it's important for us to have common sense growth, businesses that are going to
support and engage community members, and that are going to focus on what's best for the
community as a whole versus maybe individual property owners who have a different agenda
than the betterment of the community. So I urge you to pass this PZ.7 and 8. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir, Mr. Armbrister.
Williams Armbrister: Williams Armbrister, 3260 Thomas Avenue, here in Coconut Grove. On
this PZ. 7, I'm familiar with the area. I frequent therefor my boiled fish and grits; it's a
Bahamian restaurant there. And growth is inevitable, but the growth should blend in with the
existing community, because if you start the growth without the blend, then the community is
going to have to blend in with the growth. I strongly suggest that you all go out there and visit
that community and look, and see how the development is going to impact that community.
Low density commercial might be good, but anything other than that is going to destroy the
character and the lives of the people in that community. And many people come to you talking
about jobs, but they're speaking about lowercase 'j "jobs. That means that when the
construction is done, they have to go and find another lowercase 'j "job. When I speak about
jobs, I'm talking about long-term employment, as most of the people that come and speak to you
have already. So if the jobs is not going to be a capital "J"jobs, where they have -- it's a career
-- employment, they have retirement benefits, like all of you and many of the people here, then
they really offer nothing to this community, other than the continuation of destabilization. So I
ask you to consider deferring this for another time. Go out and seethe communityfor yourself.
Look at their presentation on what they're going to offer the community. What are you going to
build there? What is it going to look like when you're done? Go see these things for yourself.
Don't just look at their drawings and things of that nature. And I appreciate your time. And
hello to all you wonderful people at the sound of my voice. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, ma'am.
Lorena Ramos: Good afternoon. My name is Lorena Ramos. I'm the chairperson of Buena
City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vista Stakeholders; hope everyone is well today. I am coming here to let you know that we've
had two very community-based meetings. Both times the majority vote was to allow the
development to occur, but not just rampant growth, especially -- and I want to congratulate my
sister association, Buena Vista Heights, who made sure that it was -- the height was going to be
limited to two stories. And also -- that was in the entire site. And also, as far as jobs are
concerned, especially you, Chairman Hardemon, who was at our meeting last night, thank you
so much. You expressed to us how great even jobs that are summer; summer jobs make a
difference in a teen's life. So any type of job is always a good thing. We are in support of the
application, and we hope that you approve the application. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Armbrister: Forgive me. I forgot to mention I was speaking on items PZ.7 and PZ. 8.
Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Mr. Armbrister.
Tarek Turjuman: Yes. Hello. I'm hereto support 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue, its rezoning. My
name is Tarek Turjuman. I own the property right in front of it, to the south side; 170 Northwest
42nd Street. And I've been staring at that lot for two years now, and it's just empty, and
Northwest 2nd Avenue needs this to happen for this property so we can get a tenant in there,
and get the avenue feeling and looking better than it is. So I fully support it and I hope
everyone will.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir.
Iris Escarra: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Iris Escarra, with offices at 333 Southeast 2nd
Avenue. I'm here in support of PZ. 11, regarding lots and frontages. It's actually a qualification
that needed to be added to the Code, as in Wynwood, to be able to shift the density, since the
density is the same. So I would appreciate your moving forward on that item today on second
reading. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Sir, you're recognized.
Thomas Thelusma: My name is Thomas Thelusma. I'm here for PZ.7 and 8. I have been a
resident and family in that communityfor -- since I was five years old, and I'm about 46 this
year. The community has been up and down. It's -- in regards to jobs -- not to address his
concern, but in terms of jobs, right now, there's no jobs. If there's no building, there's no
progress. And according to one of our chairpersons, the developer has come and expressed --
you know, engaged with us, and we actually appreciated that. And so being a part of that, the
community, and transitioning in what we call development, as well as residential will blend in
pretty well, and I hope it passes. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Marisela Garcia: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Marisela Garcia. I live at 412 Northwest
41st Street. I've been a resident since 2000. I'm here as --
Chair Hardemon: Okay, it's not your fault.
Ms. Garcia: --for the zoning of zones 7 and 8. I pass by there every single day, the property at
4201 Northwest 2nd, and part of it is an eyesore. Besides being a empty lot, which, at cold
weather times, homeless and crackheads form fires, I -- at the corner of the street, there was a
house that was unoccupied, and it went up in fire. It's about three homes from where I am. I
City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
welcome the opportunity of seeing something different in my community, not just for jobs; to
see prestigious schools in the area, medical offices that we desperately need in the area for
patients who cannot get around and I'm pro, and I appreciate your time.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much.
Ms. Garcia: Okay.
Evelyn Andre: Good afternoon. My name is Evelyn Andre. I'm here representing Buena Vista
Heights Neighborhood Association. I'm herein support ofPZ.7 and 8. We've been working
with the developers for quite awhile. We've had three meetings. They had three outreach
meetings with the neighborhood. We want to also put on record our covenant that we worked
with them on to create a buffer that will protect the neighborhood, establishing a stepper, so
that there won't be any intrusion with the neighborhood. We've been listening to what our
neighbors have been saying, their fears as to a commercial development encroaching into the
neighborhood, and we wanted to give ourselves a buffer. We also would like, as an association,
to be notified if there are any changes, if this is approved, but we look forward to seeing
positive changes in the neighborhood. We want development, we want other developers to come
into the neighborhood and give back, and do stuff that would encourage a kind of relationship
between our neighborhood and the businesses. So we look forward to seeing positive
development into the neighborhood. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Let's see what happens here.
Brenda Betancourt: Can be the last one.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Betancourt: You want I start? Fine. Good afternoon. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest
6th Street. I want to thank the director, Kevin Kir [sic]. He spoke with me about the pothole in
the park, and he explained to me that that was -- is something about with FDOT (Florida
Department of Transportation), and sometimes, the City doesn't have a control of it. And he
understand the -- you know, the need to be more -- pay attention of certain things; maybe close
the gate so the kids don't go in there -- but he explained to me it's nothing that is in his hands.
So I appreciate that he actually -- you took the time to explain to me, you know, what is going
on. And he's going to allow my kids to actually go inside the building and get the part -- play
there in the meantime. So I'm very happy. And I just want to talk about PZ. 13. This item is
been concern [sic]. I am not against of anything to be built in our City, but actually, I'm
against of our environmental being clear, all this new construction of industrial literally two
blocks away from residential is my concern. I know for a fact that the neighbor has not been --
at least with the place that I believe that this new plan wants to be built, the neighbor has not
been informed. And I notice that you guys having some changes that you guys want to
discussed, and I think that all the neighbors need to know exactly what is going to happen if
you build a plant that this nature in the neighborhood. What is going to happen? Because you
see the trucks going back and forth everywhere. And according with the Miami 21 regulation,
they're supposedly protect the street. They will not supposedly use a specific street. They have
to have some protection with the water, the cement, the noise that they provoke to the
neighbors. And until today, I have not seen any action taken for those plans that are around
our neighborhood. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Miguel Soliman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Miguel
Soliman, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. As a resident and a business owner in the City of Miami,
City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
I'm here to speak against PZ. 13. I feel this is a tool that's being used and -- to build a plant, a
concrete batching plant in the area of 17th Avenue and 22nd Street Northwest, and I believe
this is a tool for that means. We've spoken a lot of transparency. We're trying to set our City
going in the right direction, and I feel like this right here is totally the opposite. This plant
would be -- we approved Mana, and it's going to be a great project for the City of Miami,
something that's going to be worldwide known. This plant, you'll be able to see it from -- it'll be
practically 10 blocks away from Mana; you'll be able to see it from there. It's a monster that
takes four acres full of harmful chemicals to our City, with very dangerous trucks driving
through our neighborhood. As Ms. Betancourt stated, it is within two blocks of a residential
neighborhood. I'm sure they don't know that this is intended. And we have places in our
County for these batching plants, and it's -- I don't believe it's in our City, with the amount of
pollutants and problems this will -- whenever there's rain, no matter how careful they are,
whenever there's rain, it'll wash into our street drainage system, no matter how much they try to
contain it. When we have a flood, it's going to wash out and we're going to get chemicals in our
public right-of-ways [sic] and our drainage. I'm completely against building concrete batching
plants in our City, and I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ma'am, you're recognized. Mr. Armbrister, you've --
Mr. Armbrister: It's a separate item.
Liana Rivera: Good afternoon. My name is Liana Rivera. I'm here to speak about PZ.7 and 8
I am the direct neighbor north of the subject property at 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue. I can tell
you, as a neighbor and as somebody who has been part of that neighborhood for my whole life,
as my father's been therefor 30 years, I can tell you that we welcome them, and we hope that it
will pass so we can see a great service come to our neighborhood. These people have reached
out to everybody. For the first time, I've seen a commercial owner reach out to the neighbors,
meet with people, address the issues. You know, they've invited them for food. They've given
everybody a chance to discuss and talk the issue at hand, and I think that this would be a great
benefit for our community. So I hope that we can move forward, see a school or a great
business that can benefit all the neighbors, and hopefully bring this to an end. Thank you very
much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I'm going to let you speak in a second, but I want --
I'll explain something, but can you let the gentlemen behind you speak? Because he hasn't had
a chance to speak.
Mr. Armbrister: Well, he pushed me forward.
Lazaro Priegues: No, I (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: No. It's important that you speak before.
Mr. Priegues: Thank you. My name is Laz Priegues. I live at 1923 Southwest 13th Street. I've
been therefor 13 years. I'm hereto support PZ. 9, which is the pocket park that, hopefully, we
will have built in our neighborhood. I represent the Historic Shenandoah Group. Basically,
this is a lot which used to have a crack house in it, and the City demolished the crack house,
and we -- our neighbors thought that this would be a great opportunity to have a little pocket
park. And we thank -- we all thank Commissioner Suarez for the brilliant idea of building a
park there, and we want to thank the Commission for hearing us out today, and hopefully, being
in approval of this park. I just want to remind you that there is a housing development called In
Town, which is a few blocks away, which is coming online probably in the next few months.
There'll be more than 400 units in In Town, and there's going to be young people, and all sorts
ofpeople walking around Shenandoah, which is where I live, and this would be a great place
City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
for all these young people, with their doggies and their kitties to kind of convene in the
neighborhood, and have a sense ofplace, because there's really nothing around at that moment.
And also, this would help us also increase the tree canopy, et cetera. So I thank you for taking
up the cause of our neighbors. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Armbrister, the reason I'm going to allow you to
speak is because maybe I wasn't very clear. We have a public comment section for the regular
agenda and also for the Planning & Zoning agenda. And so, residents have the reasonable
opportunity to be heard in the beginning of each of those two different types of agendas. So, for
instance, you came and you spoke at the initial -- the begin --
Williams Armbrister: The non -PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda, I spoke.
Chair Hardemon: The non -P --that's the best way to put it --a non -PZ agenda, and you spoke
again at the PZ agenda, and so coming back a second time for the PZ agenda would not be in
order. However, I want you to --so I'm going to allow you to do it because you were under the
impression that you had another opportunity to speak. So I just want to make it very clear,
though, that your opportunity to speak is once at the PZ hearing.
Mr. Armbrister: My understanding about this afternoon PZ agenda was that there would be a
presentation on the item, and then we'd get to rebuttal or address the issue at the time it was
presented by the petitioner; and that would, in turn, allow the speakers to receive an informed
decision by you at that time; opposed to later on, deciding what you're going to do, without
having the public available.
Chair Hardemon: The public is available. The public is making their --
Mr. Armbrister: Okay. Is --what time is the --will the public be available for your decisions
on these items that we're presenting now?
Chair Hardemon: No. The rebuttal is -- it occurs between the applicant, if there's an
appellant, or if there is someone that is a part of that party. So, for instance, if you had an item
that you put on, I would allow you to present your item. There are items that were put on before
this Commission today that the applicant had a chance to speak. I'll give you an example.
Battersea Woods was an issue that just came up. The public spoke probably in excess of 40 or
so minutes; and the applicant, who applied for the plat, probably spoke for 10 minutes. Now,
the public did not have an opportunity to rebut him or cross-examine anyone, or anything of
that nature. The City Commission had a motion that was placed on the floor; we discussed it,
and we made a decision moving forward. So it's in a similar situation. If there's an applicant,
that applicant would have an opportunity to present. If they have not already presented --some
applicants have already presented -- the public has an -- has had an opportunity to speak on
the agenda items. And so, if there's a motion, the Commission, as is our responsibility, will
debate that -- debate the issue. If there's any unreadiness where we need assistance, assistance
in facts or anything of that nature, it would be known by the Commission, but we will come to a
vote from there.
Mr. Armbrister: It must be my error, because I wasn'tpresent when there was a presentation on
PZ.9. When was that?
Chair Hardemon: I'm not sure. Let's see what PZ.9 is.
Mr. Armbrister: Was it today?
Chair Hardemon: PZ.9 is the first reading, so PZ.9 has not had its presentation just yet.
City of Miami Page 81 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Armbrister: Oh, it hasn't?
Chair Hardemon: No. So let me tell you this. So, for instance, I think PZ.9 -- I'll check. PZ.9
appeared before PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) on July 6, and had a vote of eight
"no" to pass. What that means is that the public had an opportunity to speak at that time.
Mr. Armbrister: The public had a --
Chair Hardemon: Had an opportunity --
Mr. Armbrister: -- an opportunity to speak at the PZAB?
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, at that PZAB.
Mr. Armbrister: Oh. What about at the Commission? Was the presentation made by the City
Manager at that time?
Chair Hardemon: Can I finish? And then now the -- there's going to be -- the public had an
opportunity to speak this time, and they'll also come back for a second time, and the public will
have an opportunity to speak. And so my point to you is that the public will have an
opportunity to speak. The one thing that the public may not have an opportunity to do is
debate the applicant, because that is not the responsibility of the public. The public gives its
opinion about whether or not they think an item should be passed or not, but it is not apart of
our legal determination to determine not -- whether or not something that the public says is the
reason why that item should pass or not. So I'm telling you this to say that you have an
opportunity to be heard on the item, and what you say is important. For instance, the 4201
situation, the public's come in; they've said that "we support this item. " However, you should
know that the fact that they support it or not is not legal sufficiency or not whether it should
pass. That is a different standard. And so, I don't want to confuse that record for anyone.
Mr. Armbrister: No, not at all. I just wanted to know when this presentation was made by the
City Manager about PZ. 9.
Chair Hardemon: It just -- it has --
Mr. Armbrister: Is it on record? Can I view it?
Chair Hardemon: We haven't called it yet. We haven't called it yet.
Mr. Armbrister: You haven't?
Chair Hardemon: No.
Mr. Armbrister: Anyhow, on PZ.9 -- I'm sorry Commissioner Suarez isn't here, because that's a
single-family lot. You need to go by and see it for yourself. There used to be a house there.
And as much as there is a desire to do certain things, we have needs that are --jar exceeds our
desires, like single-family homes. On that lot, you could put one single-family home for
affordable housing or two single-family homes for low-income housing. We don't need to
change the character of our community because someone has a desire for fun and games, and
that appears to be what we're doing. If it's involving fun and games, let's do it. We have a
greater need here in the City of Miami: home ownership, equality. We have greater needs than
just more parks. And to suggest that we need to spend money to build another park when
you've taken millions away from upgrading our parks that need to be upgraded to purchase a
building, you could have used that money for housing, which is what we need. We don't need
City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
that building. For some reason or another, the City of Miami has a greater need for a trolley
building than they do for homeownership. You need --your responsibility is to take care of the
needs of the people and include the things you want, as long as they don't interfere with you
fulfilling the needs. Remember, you are our elected officials, our elected lobbyists. There is
more of us voting for you than one developer or one contractor. See, we are the votes that put
you there to represent our needs and not our wants, and I would ask you to take our needs into
consideration; home ownership, notparks. Thankyou.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Armbrister: I mean, because eventually, a lot of people will be living in a park, so it might
come in handy. You could put -- like four or five families on that park that you're going to build
there. Thank you for your time.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Armbrister, what high school did you go to?
Mr. Armbrister: I'm sorry?
Chair Hardemon: What high school did you attend?
Mr. Armbrister: I went to Coral Gables.
Chair Hardemon: Coral Gables?
Mr. Armbrister: Yeah, a low -class high school.
Chair Hardemon: When I was in high school, Coral Gables had Frank Gore.
Mr. Armbrister: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: He ran for about 300 yards on us. We still won the game at Miami
Northwestern, and our running back got the MVP (most valuable player) that year, but of
course, Frank Gore is in the league, doing very well.
Mr. Armbrister: Very good, very good.
Chair Hardemon: So that means something.
Mr. Armbrister: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Armbrister: The people is your responsibility --
Chair Hardemon: Yeah.
Mr. Armbrister: --not developers, not contractors, but the people. We are your responsibility.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Armbrister: Represent us. The reason why you get so much --so many people down here
taking up so much time is because we're afraid we're not -- we can't count on trusting you to
make those decisions that are going to impact us as we need your decisions to.
City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Armbrister: So that's why there are so many people here.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Armbrister: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: All right. You're recognized, ma'am.
Berlinda Faye Dickson: Hi. Berlinda Faye Dickson, community advocate, organizer for
Overtown, chair of the board for SMASH. SMASH is slumlords.org. SMASH, the "Struggle for
Miami's Affordable and Sustainable Housing. " I'm here to just state -- to echo what the brother
just --
Chair Hardemon: And newly appointed to the Overtown Oversight Board.
Ms. Dickson: Thank you. And newly appointed to the Overtown/Oversight Board, and
hopefully the County this afternoon. Anyway, in talking about our housing crisis, SMASH, the
"Struggle for Miami's Affordable and Sustainable Housing, " also known as "SMASH the
slumlords, " has come up with a comprehensive plan, and I will be giving you guys each a copy
of that today on a emergency sanctuary and container homes that are all hurricane proof, via
Community Land Trust, if I can get County or City property. A three bed-room/one-bath home
will max out at $600. That's taxes, principal, insurance, and administration fees. I'm working
with CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) across the country to develop a mortgage
product and component that will serve the extremely low and low-income population. Yesterday
morning, I was at Culmer Train Station. There was two people in a wheelchair; one a
motorized wheelchair, a woman with cancer and on cancer medication, and another gentleman
in a wheelchair, and they have nowhere to go. They're total combined income, with both Social
Security checks, is $1,700. They have nowhere to live. They are homeless. That is a travesty.
So with my affordable housing plan, I hope that you would consider it, look at it; let's tweak it,
let's fix it. We are a non -for-profit; we do not benefit. We created a for profit business called
"Worlds, " which is a gaming business. I'm also collaborating with Reverend Lincoln, Reverend
Lincoln Art Gallery, and she has agreed to donate part of that building and space to
low-income artists, and donate that space for the duration of eternity to Overtown, and a third
of the proceeds to go back towards SMASH to help build this. So we are self -funding; therefore,
we can take the felons, we can create a building for the pedophiles, we can create that
transitional drug rehab housing that all funding has been eliminated. So I've been very hard
working on these things. I'm going to make some copies of this, submit it to the City Clerk's
Oj]ice, and I would please ask that you would consider it. Again, I say, we are a not-for-profit.
I work for free, and so does everybody else, and we are all poor, but we know that the need is
great, and so we have devised -- We are a board member of all low-income, for the most part,
citizens, with the exception of Mary, who works for Barry; and Tomas, who works for MAST
(Maritime and Science Technology) Academy. He's a teacher on our board, but the rest are
residents of Liberty City, and they are previous residents of the Vatkin [sic] buildings. So the
struggle is real, but the slumlords -- and I please ask you to revisit slum and blight and enforce
that, and again with nuisance abatement. Thank you so much for all that you do. Have a good
day.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You might have found you anew calling. Could be a
good thing.
Renescha Coats: I just wanted to piggyback. My name is Renescha --
City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Can you pull the mike down?
Ms. Coats: My name is Renescha Coats, 3420 Hibiscus Street. I just wanted to piggyback on
what she was saying about the container homes, and things like that. I think that's an okay idea
for like a third -world country, or something like that, butt feel like that's wrong to want to put
people in containers, because their income is not of what you guys say is moderate or
affordable, or whatever. Who -- like no one wants to live in a container. At the end of the day,
we have the means to build affordable housing that is adequate for human life. We're not in Chi
-- we're not somewhere that we don't have the means to build affordable housing. We're in
America. And it's just a problem that we, as a community; we, as a city, need to address. There
needs to be more low-income housing. As I was explaining to the young lady that came and
talked to me from your office about Courtside Apartments, they --for the 33 percent income, it's
nine units. The rest of the units is 60 percent of your income, and you have to make 32, 000 a
year. I make 31, 000, and I have four kids, but I can't afford to get -- I'm not at the mark to get
a three bedroom because I'm at 31, 000; you need 32 -- almost 33, 000 to get a four bedroom.
We need to change some of these laws, change some of these incomes so that people can afford
it, regular working-class people. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Do you have --? Well, I'll put it this way: If you take the time, you can walk
into my office. We have computers, right? I want you to look up "container cities " in different
parts of the world to see some of the concepts they have of container cities.
Ms. Coats: I've looked at them.
Chair Hardemon: Because I say that to you because there's some container units that are more
expensive than people's typical homes, like to turn those containers into something that's
livable.
Ms. Coats: Yeah, I've looked at them, but the ones that this lady brought us -- to our building --
Chair Hardemon: Not the same --
Ms. Coats: You guys want to see them?
Chair Hardemon: We'll --I'm sure we'll see them, because she's going to give it to us on the
record.
Ms. Coats: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: But okay. But no problem. All right, I just want to make sure that you saw
some of them.
Ms. Coats: Yeah, I know.
Chair Hardemon: All right, thank you.
Ms. Coats: All right.
Beba Mann: Good afternoon. I hope I'm doing this right. This is for PZ item 14.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: I deferred that.
City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Mann: Okay. Was deferred? I thought so.
Chair Hardemon: Item 14.
Ms. Beba: And I called the Clerk's Office, and they said, "No. " And then they came out here to
confirm and they said, "No, it has not been deferred, " so I ran from the office here.
Chair Hardemon: It probably wasn't deferred at the time that you called, so --
Ms. Mann: I thought I heard it from this morning.
Chair Hardemon: Say it again.
Ms. Mann: I thought I heard that it was --
Chair Hardemon: Oh, this morning --
Ms. Mann: -- deferred this morning.
Chair Hardemon: Right. So this morning -- many times what happens is that we announce our
intent to defer something, but we legally cannot take any action on an item that's a PZ agenda
until after 12. I mean --I'm sorry -- until after 2. I have a difference of opinion. I think that
we should have the ability to defer an item, but I'm overruled.
Ms. Mann: I mean, this is the second time they deferred this item, and it's for an illegal unit.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Mann: Yes, it was deferred the last time; I was here.
Chair Hardemon: It was continued on July 29, so -- yes, but it is deferred today.
Ms. Mann: For when?
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Clerk, do you have the date?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Which item?
Chair Hardemon: PZ.14.
Mr. Hannon: Yes, PZ.14 was continued to October 27.
Chair Hardemon: 20 what?
Mr. Hannon: 27.
Chair Hardemon: 7th?
Mr. Hannon: 27, two, seven.
Chair Hardemon: Got it. 27.
Ms. Mann: 27.
City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Okay, ma'am?
Ms. Mann: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. I'm sorry you had to come this way to learn that. Is there any
other person that would like to speak on the Planning & Zoning items? Sir, I said a person;
you are an institution in the City of Miami. Good seeing you.
Elvis Cruz: And it's a shame there aren't a dozen more like me, sir.
Chair Hardemon: If there were -- Well, one, there are, there are. Trust me.
Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I'd like to address PZ.7 and 8,
which is the up -zoning into the neighborhood off of Northwest 2nd Avenue. Commissioner
Hardemon, this is in your district. This is your baby. If you look at the zoning map, which I
hope you have in your packet, you will see this is a clear intrusion of commercial zoning into
the residential zone. The very reason zoning laws exist are to prevent this exact sort of thing
from happening. This proposal violates Section 7.1.2.8 of Miami 21. It is not protective of the
neighborhood. The existing zoning is appropriate. The proposed zoning is inappropriate. The
existing zoning exists all over town. For it to be inappropriate here, it would be inappropriate
all over town. If this property has been used as a commercial use since 1983, then that's a
long-term Code Enforcement violation. It's not a reason to up -zone the property now. They're
attempting rezoning by covenant. One of the proposals in the covenant is that they would build
a six-foot masonry wall, but that's already required under Miami 21. Section 3.7.1, for all
commercial and industrial uses, a six-foot solid masonry wall shall be provided along all
property lines which adjoin T3. So there you have it. Here, they're offering a bogus covenant,
offering to do something that they're already required to do under the existing Code. Rezoning
by covenant is insidious. The neighbors are required to remember it. There's not enough
institutional memory in the City of Miami to remember it. And covenants can and do and have
been brought before this Commission and redone. In closing, Commissioner Hardemon, I ask
you to protect this neighborhood in your district from this up -zoning. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there any other person that'd like to speak on the
Planning & Zoning items? Seeing no further persons, the public comment section has come to
an end.
PZ.1 ORDINANCE First Reading
14-00655zc
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 -8-R "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - RESTRICTED" TO
T6 -48a-0 "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ATAPPROXIMATELY 240 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 240 SE 14th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell -
District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
Miami and A. Vicky Leiva, Esquire, on behalf of Babylon International, Inc.,
Owner
City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on
January 6, 2016, by a vote of 7-4.
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning classification for the above property
from T6 -8-R "Urban Core Transect Zone - Restricted" to T6 -48a-0 "Urban Core
Transect Zone -Open". Item includes a covenant.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
INDEFINITELY DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ. 1, please see "Order of
the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: Now back to PZ. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Vice Chairman, how would you wish to
continue?
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): With yourpermission, Mr. Chair --I'm sorry
-- item PZ.1 is not a part of that discussion --
Vice Chair Russell: 2, 3, and 4.
Mr. Garcia: -- I think that we are ready to move forward in terms of continuing it indefinitely, I
hope.
Chair Hardemon: So PZ. I.
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to continue that indefinitely?
Vice Chair Russell: Move it.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded; moved by the Vice Chairman. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motionpasses.
PZ.2 ORDINANCE First Reading
15-00975zc
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 -12-L "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T6-12-0
"URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3701 AND 3737 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
Citv ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
AND 306 AND 316 NORTHEAST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING
FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 3701 and 3737 Biscayne Boulevard and 306 and
316 NE 38th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Melissa Tapanes Llahues, Esquire, on behalf of MacArthur
Properties III, LLC
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
September 2, 2015, by a vote of 7-2.
PURPOSE: This will allow a zoning classification change for the above
properties from T6 -12-L to T6-12-0.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.2 was continued to the October 27, 2016Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.2,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: There are other motions for continuances for us to consider?
Vice Chair Russell: 2, 3, and 4.
Chair Hardemon: What's your motion?
Vice Chair Russell: Well, I guess Ms. Tapanes could speak beforehand, because she may affect
that decision.
Melissa Tapanes Llahues: Thank you. Thank you. Again, Melissa Tapanes. I'm here
representing McArthur Properties, III, LLC (Limited Liability Company), on PZ (Planning &
Zoning) item 2. I'd respectfully request a deferral -- a one-month continuance of this item.
However, prior to agreeing to that deferral, I would like for confirmation on the record. I've
provided this correspondence, dated September 20, to Mr. Garcia. I have copies for the record.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Ms. Tapanes Llahues: In summary, what the letter provides is Article VII, Section 7.1.2.8. G.3
ofMiami 21 provides that if a recommendation of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board is not
legislatively decided within 12 months from the first reading by the City Commission, the
application upon which the report and recommendation are based shall be deemed to have been
denied. This application was approved -- or recommended for approval by the Planning,
Zoning & Appeals Board on September 2, 2015. However, the application has been deferred
without a first reading since that time. The purpose of this correspondence before you and
submitted to Mr. Garcia is to confirm on the record that the 12 -month limitation would not
Citv ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
apply to this application, as we are proceeding with the deferral in good faith, as the
Commissioner has requested. Upon that confirmation on the record, we will concur with the
one-month deferral; that's for PZ item 2.
Vice Chair Russell: Is that correct, Mr. Garcia?
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): I have no objection. I'm sorry, just to
reaffirm, I think --
Vice Chair Russell: There is no -- that there is no need for us to take any action with regard to
their expiration?
Mr. Garcia: That is correct. I will affirm that they have proceeded forward on the application
in good faith, and all reasonable efforts have been made, and I think that does qualify them for
a continuance beyond the 12 -month period.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. In that case, I would alter my motion -- I hadn't made a motion
yet. One-month deferral for 2, 3, and -- PZ.2, 3, and 4.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to defer --
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I would just ask --
Commissioner Suarez: I was going to say --
Vice Chair Russell: You need a date?
Commissioner Suarez: No. I was just going to say that you should probably make as part of
your motion --
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: -- the fact that there's an extension of time granted to the applicant
under the rules.
Mr. Min: I would just suggest the comments made by --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Mr. Min: -- Mr. Garcia be adopted as part of the motion --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Mr. Min: -- by Commissioner Russell.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: We good? You need me to read it, right?
City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Properly moved.
Commissioner Carollo: Seconder --
Chair Hardemon: No. It's been properly moved and seconded that we continue for one month
PZ.2, 3, and 4, bearing upon -- no punishment upon the applicant for having their time period
extended beyond a year. All in favor of this motion, say so by saying "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes.
Ms. Tapanes Llahues: Thank you.
PZ.3 ORDINANCE First Reading
09-008631u1
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 .75±ACRES, AS
DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBITA", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, OF THE
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 455 NORTHEAST 38TH STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3801
BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, 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 FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 3801 Biscayne Boulevard and 455 Northeast 38th
Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of 3801 Biscayne Ltd.
and 3801 Biscayne Corp.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See
companion File ID 09-00863zc1.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on
February 17, 2016, by a vote of 6-1.
PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "Medium Density
Multifamily Residential" to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial".
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Coinnussioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Citv ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Note for the Record: Item PZ.3 was continued to the October 27, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.3,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.3, please see item PZ.2.
PZ.4 ORDINANCE
09-00863zc1
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 OF
APPROXIMATELY .75±ACRES, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED
AND INCORPORATED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 455
NORTHEAST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF THE
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3801 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, FROM T4 -R, "GENERAL URBAN ZONE - RESTRICTED", TO T5-0,
"URBAN CENTER ZONE - OPEN"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 3801 Biscayne Boulevard and 455 Northeast 38th
Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of 3801 Biscayne Ltd.
and 3801 Biscayne Corp.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the
proposed zoning change as presented, but recommended approval of the
proposed zoning change with the condition that the entire subject area be
rezoned to T5 -L. See companion File ID 09-00863lu1.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on
February 17, 2016, by a vote of 6-1.
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning for a portion of the above properties
from 74-R" General Urban Zone - Restricted to 75-0" Urban Center Zone -
Open.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.4 was continued to the October 27, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.4, please see item PZ 2.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.4,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Citv ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
PZ.5 ORDINANCE First Reading
15-00973lu
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 APPROXIMATELY
0.68 ACRES DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 30, 48, 54, AND 62 NORTHWEST 34TH STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 30, 48, 54, 62 NW 34th Street [Commissioner
Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Miami
Management Group, Inc.; Marks Subdivision Apt., LLC; Pedro J. Enriquez;
Miami Green Houses, LLC.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial; however,
staff would recommend approval for the property located at 30 NW 34th Street.
See companion File ID 15-00973zc.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial as a
result of two failed votes to approve on September 16, 2015.
PURPOSE: This will change the land use designation for the above properties
from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial".
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
REMANDED TO PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD PASSED by the following
vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Gott
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.5,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: Okay, let's try to take these continuances in ways that are a bit more
palatable. Is there a motion to remand 5 and -- PZ.5 and 6 to Planning & Zoning?
Mr. Garcia: May I add to the record chart -- just for purposes of clarity -- that the reason for
the remanding is that additional land is proposed to be added to this rezoning proposal, and
that would trigger immediately a need to rehear by the PZAB. By virtue of remanding this to
the PZAB, you will allow the applicants to both add the land, as appropriate; and also, to --
you would be allowing the Planning & Zoning Department to conduct a new analysis and
present to the P7 -4B.
Citv ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: So the Chair seeks -- will seek to entertain a motion to remand item PZ.5
and 6. It's been properly moved by Commissioner Suarez, second by the Chair. Any further
discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motionpasses.
PZ.6 ORDINANCE First Reading
15-00973zc
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 T3-0 "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" TO T4-0 "GENERAL
URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 30, 48, 54, AND 62 NORTHWEST 34TH STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 30, 48, 54, and 62 NW 34 Street [Commissioner
Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Miami
Management Group, Inc.; Marks Subdivision Apt., LLC; Pedro J. Enriquez;
Miami Green Houses, LLC.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of Lots 9,
10 and 11 (30 NW 34th Avenue) and denial of Lots 12, 13 and 14 (48, 24 and
62 NW 34th Street). See companion File ID 15-009731u.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on
September 16, 2015, by a vote of 7-1.
PURPOSE: This will allow a zoning classification change for the above
properties from T3-0 to T4-0.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
REMANDED TO PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD PASSED by the following
vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Gort
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.6, please see item PZ.5.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.6,
please see "Order of the Day. "
PZ.7 ORDINANCE Second Reading
15-00974lu
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
Citv ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT
PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO §163.3187, FLORIDA 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 FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
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
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 Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
13634
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ. 7,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: PZ.7.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): I'll introduce the item briefly. I know the
applicant is here, and he, I'm sure, is happy to provide additional background. I'll mention
briefly that this is a land use designation change proposal, as well as rezoning proposal for
properties at 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue. The proposal takes land that is presently zoned T4 -L
and T3 -L, and the change would be to a zoning of T4-0 and T4 -L. The land use designation
itself would be a change from duplex residential to low-density restricted commercial on the
T3 -L -zoned property. The Planning & Zoning Department has recommended approval, as did
the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and the City Commission on first reading. It is before
you on second reading today. I'll defer to the applicant.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Steven Wernick: Mr. Chair, the past several months, we've been working -- and when I say
"we, "I really mean my client, Karen and Adam -- have been working very hard with two
City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
different neighborhood associations, stakeholders in the area, both commercial owners on 2nd
Avenue as well as residents in the neighborhood. You've obviously heard, before I'm speaking,
from a number of residents in the neighborhood, which I think is more important than anything
I have to say. I did give a presentation on first reading, so unless you want me to, my intention
is to submit a letter into the record, because we haven't been here in quite some time, which just
documents some of the community outreach. We have over 40 letters of support, including from
Buena Vista Stakeholders Association, we also have support from Buena Vista Heights, and so
I'd like to put this into the record. This also includes the covenant that has been proffered --or
that I am now proffering on behalf of my client, the applicant, that would provide for the
appropriate transition between the property and the neighborhood, which is limiting the height
of the property to what T3 would allow. It deals with setbacks. It deals with screening of any
surface parking. It deals with any out --a prohibition on outdoor dining. So the comments we
heard over the last several months have been addressed in this covenant, it's been reviewed,
and everyone who's looked at it has told us, you know, that they appreciate it and they support
it. And it does provide for notice to both associations, if there was any future owner that was to
seek any amendment to this covenant. This will get recorded on the property, and any future
owner would have notice of it, and we're putting it on the record right now.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Garcia, can you help explain --? I mean, many
times -- well, I'm looking at the land use map, the existing land use map. The property is
extended into a duplex residential area, and it'll be made low-density restricted commercial. It
is the only low-density restricted commercial that is on -- between the 42nd Street and 44th
Street, which is where this property lies. Can you better explain for me, so that I'm clear, why
this is a proper use of its -- of our zoning laws? I'm looking a -- the PZ,4B (Planning, Zoning &
Appeals Board) that had recommended approval of 11-0, and the Planning & Zoning
Department also recommended approval. And so I'm trying to understand exactly how so that
you're able to do that, when I look at that map and it appears that it is an intrusion into the
residential community.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you for the opportunity to do so, Mr. Chairman. I -- I'm happy to do it.
Early on in the process, when the applicant first came in and we were presented with this
application, probably one of the very first things that we responded to him with was the fact that
we would much prefer, if there were the appetite to do so, to actually look at the entire corridor
and attempt to ascertain, through analysis, what the appropriate zoning would be for that
condition; and that, of course, as you might imagine, takes some time, a significant amount of
commitment on the part of the Department. And although on -- at first glance, we thought that
the corridor itself might merit that kind of an analysis, they certainly had the ability, should
they wish to do so, to file for an application on an individual basis for their property. Were the
City to do it, of course, we would do it for all the properties involved, and that would be a City
application, but in this case, the applicant, the property owner opted to move forward with their
individual application. The reason our recommendation is a favorable one, the reason I
believe, ultimately, the residents have found some merit in the application, the reason the
Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, I think, supported it in the end has to do with the fact that
it introduces a concept and this otherwise -- and Mr. Cruz is correct to point out -- that
presently, a very straight line exists, dividing one zoning designation from the next, but the
precedent that is set here is, one, that we would find sustainable were it to continue. At this
point in time, we have not conducted the analysis. At this point in time, we're not prepared to
bring to you an application that actually proposes that. But this is a corridor that is fairly
major in terms of the trajfic that it holds. This is, I think, an opportunityfor retail scale --
retail that is scaled to the needs of a neighborhood, not large scale retail, but small-scale retail,
to service the needs of the neighborhood to make it a more walkable neighborhood; and in
order to accomplish that, the depth of the properties that front the major corridor is
significantly constrained. All that said, what you have before you today is basically an
instance, a single instance of a zoning application which, if it were to continue up and down,
City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
subject to the singular restrictions as proposed here, would be, we believe, sustainable, which is
the reason we've recommended approval. We will follow up with an analysis of the corridor as
a whole, and we will report back to the Commission to see if that's actually worthy of
consideration or not. But at the very least, we are convinced that there are no negative impacts
to be derived from the approval of this application.
Chair Hardemon: Can you tell me what would be some of the allowable uses for a low-density
restricted commercial parcel of land?
Mr. Garcia: So the first thing to consider in T4-0 is that there is -- the T4-0 being the zoning
designation along the corridor that's being proposed -- is that there is a height limit of 40 feet,
which, in effect, means roughly three stories; that there is also a limit on what kinds of
commercial uses can be had, and the dimension is specifically to neighborhood -scaled retail;
and all the more onerous uses, if you will, such as large restaurants, et cetera, would be subject
to a warrant process, which implies additional review by staff. So, generally speaking, the kind
Of commercial there can be is small scaled and fairly benign, not resulting in an undo impact to
the nearby residential areas.
Mr. Wernick: Mr. Chair, ifI --
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Mr. Wernick: -- might add to that, what's specific to this site that distinguishes it from some of
the other properties -- because, you know, what we're not here for is necessarily to analyze the
whole corridor; although, maybe at some point in the future, there's some merit for that, if the
neighborhood wants to do that. This site is -- excuse me -- different than all of the abutting
sites around it on 2nd Avenue, in the sense that it is one address/one folio that has been owned
contiguously for 30 or 40 years and, as far back as we can see, was never used for residential
purposes. So other sites in the area have been assembled over time, and maybe they've been,
you know, put together in maybe a vacant site that someone wants to develop, but this site has
-- it's almost as if it's a civic site that you might see on a corridor or -- you know, this happens
in many neighborhoods. If you look at west of Midtown, you have T5 and T3, but that line goes
back and forth. Some of it -- sometimes it goes deeper, and it often is to reflect unified
ownership so that that one owner has a single type of transect zone, and so in this case, it
doesn't necessarily set a precedent, at least from our view. It's just reflecting what the history
of the site had been, and the T4 -L zoning with the covenant and what's in the covenant would
limit the height to two stories, it would limit any commercial only to ground floor, with a 50
percent max on the square footage, so it's -- the commercial aspect of it is very minimal, and so
it does create that transition from 2nd Avenue as you go east.
Chair Hardemon: The covenant, is it attached to PZ.7 or PZ8?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): PZ8.
Chair Hardemon: PZ. 8, okay. Ma'am, we concluded the public comment section of the --
Susan Braun: I apologize, Chairman. If I may address, or is it too late? I represent the
homeowners in opposition.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, please. Go ahead.
Ms. Braun: Okay. Please accept my apology. As a follow-up to --
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name and address for the record.
City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Braun: Susan Braun, 45 Northwest 44th Street, Miami, Florida 33127, Buena Vista
Neighborhood Association. As a follow-up to the last time we were here and some of the
questions and comments from the Commissioners, we -- Buena Vista Neighborhood Association
sent several emails to the developers to work out creative resolutions for the property, such as
perhaps a parking waiver; anything that didn't spot zone the residential to commercial, and we
were never able to have that discussion. I don't know if you recall the homeowner, Debbie
Wright, the attorney who was here last time. Unfortunately, she's in Maryland. Her father has
-- had cancer surgery two days ago. She wrote a two-page letter that she sent to all of you, but
basically, it was that it seemed that the attorneys for the applicant did personal research on her
to discredit her. And also the petition that we had -- all of the homeowners -- all the impacted
homeowners on the block signed a petition, whereas if it's not the actual homeowner, it's the
adult child of the homeowner who helped translate for the parent in this neighborhood, but
almost all of the impacted homeowners opposed. I do understand, there was a meeting
September -- this past Tuesday, September 19, and I didn't attend that one. I attended the
previous, where when I tried to explain spot zoning, I was told to sit down and be quiet. Now, I
spoke with one of the homeowners who attended that meeting and who did sign the petition, and
this is the one thing that I would like to share. `Dear Honorable City of Miami Commissioners,
my name is Pedro Maldonado. I have lived on Northwest 42nd Street in Buena Vista Heights
for about 50 years, and my home is a few houses away from 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue. I
attended the meeting at 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue this past Monday, September 19, and
signed a petition supporting a school at that location. The information told to the neighbors at
that meeting was that the playground is going to stay residential. Thank you very much.
Respectfully, Pedro Maldonado." The playground is the portion zoned residential. My point is
the neighbors are not being properly informed. And I understand, it's the developer and the
attorneys representing the developers' goal to maximize profit for the site, but it's disappointing
when the neighbors aren't sticking together to support the voices of the working class. So I
hope you here today support the quiet voices of the working class, who opposed spot zoning.
Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Ms. Braun: And would you like me to share this?
Chair Hardemon: You can share it with the Clerk.
Ms. Braun: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: The -- so I just want it to be clear for the record that that was an extension of
our public comment section, and so -- I know there are a number of things that were said that
probably the City wants to respond to, as well as the applicant, so I know that this probably
extends your -- our conversation. And particularly, why -- when it comes to the public
comment section, why I want to ensure that we have public comment section before and not
during the time where we're trying to debate an action, because we'll get into a back and forth,
not with just the parties that we have before us, the applicants, but also with individual
residents, because clearly, if we have one resident that is saying something that is much
different from the two different associations that are also affected in this situation, but what I've
always -- I still to this day, I find always to be awesome, is that any time someone says who they
are, they say, "I've been a resident of this communityfor Y number of years, " which is
particularly why I want to have that three-year requirement for running for office in our dear
city, but that's -- that boat has sailed. Sir.
Mr. Garcia: So perhaps a couple of comments just to try to supplement the record. You have
heard numerous times, and I expect you'll continue to hear, the word or the term, "spot zoning"
City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
thrown around rather loosely. Let me take this opportunity to state that the term, "spot
zoning, " when used appropriately, is used to connote, exclusively, conditions where the zoning
designation proposed is absolutely incompatible to that which exists around it. In other words,
you take something that makes sense, you move it into something that is really anathema to
what exists around it. Spot zoning -- and again, we've had an opportunity to discuss this
previously, but just to clam the record for this item -- does not apply where you have a
condition that exists already, and you are trying to intervene so as to provide a transition
between that condition and the abutting condition. The clearest example possible --and this
exists throughout the City, which is why you hear this conversation happen so often -- is when
you have a T6-8, let'say, zone immediately abutting a T3 zone. Those two uses, in principle,
are fairly incompatible. And I think it is widely recognized to be such. I don't think anyone
argues that. And so, the introduction of an intervening T4 or T5 is not spot zoning in any
particular case; it's actually a transition between one and the other, and it actually makes it an
enhanced result. This is one such instance. What we are doing here, if this proposal succeeds,
is to introduce a transition between an existing designation and an abutting designation. Could
they exist without the transition? They could. Could the transition benefit in this particular
case, the result? It certainly can, and that's what we're proposing to you would happen. And
then I am taking one step further to advise you that to study that condition along the entire
length of the corridor might too make sense. I'll say one more thing very briefly, and then I'll
yield. The previous zoning designation for the entire Northwest 2nd Avenue corridor right
around this latitude happened to have been Cl, right? For those who are familiar with Zoning
Ordinance 11000, Cl allowed for great heights, roughly 120 feet under most conditions, and
allowed a very open set of commercial uses and office uses. No longer the case. However,
what may have happened as a result of changing over to Miami 21 is that a very conservative
zoning designation was applied, which may have compromised the ability of these properties
along Northwest 2nd Avenue to develop correctly as small-scale commercial activity to support
the needs of the abutting residential areas. That is what we're proposing to do here. That is
what we're proposing to facilitate through this zoning ordinance. And that is what we would
like to explore also along the entire length of the corridor. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Wernick, do you have any other comments?
Mr. Wernick: The only thing I'll add, because it did come up as a comment about our
willingness to meet their emails, and I think it's in the last exhibit in what I handed out, where
basically we were told like "We're not interested in meeting anymore, and we think you should
stop meeting with the neighbors and, you know, harassing them or continuing this process. " So
I think my client has always been open and transparent with the community. They've hosted
many meetings at their site. They've really -- I mean, they've embraced the community.
They've gotten to know everyone. They've understood what people are looking for and what
they're not looking for. And so, you know, I think what you've seen today is a lot offolks who
put a lot of time and effort into it, more so even than I have, much more than I have, and so, I
think they should be commended for their efforts in working together, and it's, I think, a result
of a very strong collaborative process.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Members of the board, considering the presentation that was
made at our first hearing of this item, and also the information that was given to us from our
Planning & Zoning Department, as well as the applicant, and now, once again, further
clarifying what spot zoning is for PZ. 7 from Francisco, Mr. Garcia, and considering the
opinion of -- the expert opinion of the Planning & Zoning Department and also the PZAB,
where they opined by a vote of 11-0 that this was sufficient and this was a proper use of our
Planning & Zoning codes, I ask that you propose a motion to approve PZ. 7.
Chair Gort: Move it.
City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly --
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: --moved and seconded to approve PZ. 7. Is there any further discussion?
Any other unreadiness?
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Burnaby Min.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item PZ. 7. Commissioner Suarez?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Vice Chair Russell?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Carollo?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Gort?
Chair Gort: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Chair Hardemon?
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Garcia, I look forward to your analysis about the 2nd Avenue corridor.
That ave -- that corridor is in need for a transition. It does -- it -- the zoning is intense at one
lot and then more -- a lot more relaxed at the next lot, so I look forward to that. For.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.
PZ.8 ORDINANCE Second Reading
15-00974zc
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 T4-0, "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 FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
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):
Citv of Miami
Page 100
Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
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
Transect Zone- Limited" to T4 -L "General Urban Center Transect Zone -
Limited" and T4 -L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" to T4-0
"General Urban Center Transect Zone - Open" for the above property.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be
ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
13635
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.8,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: The Chair would entertain a motion to approve PZ.8, with a covenant
included.
Vice Chair Russell: Move it.
Chair Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Suarez [sic]; second by the Vice
Chairman. It's an ordinance.
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. 8.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, as amended, 5-0.
Steven Wernick: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
PZ.9 ORDINANCE
16-00831 lu
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 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 0.15± ACRES OF
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1197 SOUTHWEST 19TH
AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO
"PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
LOCATION: Approximately 1197 SW 19 AVE [Commissioner Francis Suarez -
District 4]
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 ID 16-00831zc.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
July 6, 2016, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will change the Land Use designation of the property from
"Single -Family Residential" to "Public Parks and Recreation".
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.9,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: PZ.10.
Vice Chair Russell: 9?
Commissioner Suarez: 9?
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): PZs.9 and PZ. 10 can be taken together as
companion items, sir.
Chair Hardemon: PZ.9. I apologize.
Mr. Garcia: Briefly, by way of introduction, this happens to be a City of Miami application.
This is an application to amend the land use designation, and a proposal to rezone the property
at 1197 Southwest 19th Avenue. The proposal is to change the land use designation from
single-family residential to public parks and recreation, and the rezoning component of it would
be from T3 -R to CS, or civic space. The purpose of this is to actually transform this property,
which is presently vacant -- meaning, there is no single-family residents there presently -- to a
neighborhood or pocket park. We recommend approval, as did the Planning, Zoning & Appeals
Board unanimously. This is before you on first reading. Happy to respond to any questions.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Slight discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Discussion.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As Francisco stated, this was something that we
did in collaboration with the community, who -- some of which the neighbors who are here,
identifying property that is -- that was acquirable -- acquiring it and going through the process
Citv ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
of changing the land use so that it now becomes designated as a park, expanding our park
space in the City, which is difficult to do, given our constraints and land prices, et cetera. And
I just want to thank the members of the community that are here that have worked tirelessly to
make this happen. We're almost there. This is another step in realizing the dream of the
Shenandoah area to get a beautiful park for their neighborhood.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Hearing none, it's an ordinance.
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. 9.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
PZ.10 ORDINANCE First Reading
16-00831 zc
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO.
13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM T3 -R, "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - RESTRICTED", TO CS,
"CIVIC SPACE ZONE", FORTH E PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 1197 SOUTHWEST 19 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
LOCATION: Approximately 1197 SW 19 Avenue [Commissioner Francis
Suarez - District 4]
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 ID 16-008311u.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
July 6, 2016, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning designation for the above property
from T3 -R, "Sub -Urban Transect Zone - Restricted" to CS, "Civic Space/Park
Transect Zone".
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, 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 Hardemon: PZ.10.
Commissioner Suarez: Move PZ.10.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and second to accept PZ.10. Any further
discussion?
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Manager 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, 5-0.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, thank you.
PZ.11 ORDINANCE Second Reading
16-00659zt
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("MIAMI 21 CODE") BYAMENDING ARTICLE
3, SECTION 3.3.1, ENTITLED "LOTS AND FRONTAGES"; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
SPONSOR(S): Commissioner Francis Suarez
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
May 18, 2016, by a vote of 6-1.
PURPOSE: This ordinance will amend Article 3, Section 3.3.1 entitled, "Lots
and Frontages" of the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
13636
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.11,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: PZ.11.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.11 is a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Miami 21; before you on second reading. This
amendment -- I'm sorry. Was there a motion? I'm sorry.
Citv ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: I was going to ask for a Jennings disclosure. I was -- didn't mean to
interrupt you.
Mr. Garcia: Oh, all right. I'll stand by then.
Chair Hardemon: But continue on and then --
Mr. Garcia: Thankyou, sir. I'll explain it briefly. This is intended to correct an anomaly in
the NRD-I (Neighborhood Revitalization District) area, in the area of Wynwood. And basically,
the only language that is being introduced is one that allows lots assembled into one ownership,
which encompass property that traverses a zoning designation to exchange density, so long as
the density for both lots is the same. That applies already citywide by virtue of a quirk in the
drafting of NRD-1. That does not apply presently in NRD-1. We would like to correct that to
allow for that to happen in NRD-I also. Answer any questions.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve?
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Suarez; second by the Chair. Is
there any further discussion?
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Clerk.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ. 11.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.
PZ.12 ORDINANCE Second Reading
16-00657zt1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE MIAMI
21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED, BY AMENDING APPENDIX J: NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION DISTRICTS TO MODIFY REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE
NORTH MIAMI AVENUE SETBACK, ON -STREET LOADING, PARKING
STANDARDS, CROSS -BLOCK PASSAGES, STREET TREE PUBLIC
BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS,
AND TO REFORMAT THE ORGANIZATION OF THE REGULATIONS;
CONTAINING THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH THEREIN; MAKING
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING
FOR BINDING EFFECT;CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE.
SPONSOR(S): Commissioner Francis Suarez
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
Miami
Citv ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
June 15, 2016, by a vote of 10-0.
PURPOSE: This ordinance will amend the adopted NRD-1 portion of Appendix
J entitled, "Neighborhood Revitalization Districts" to modify regulations related
to On -Street Loading, Parking Standards, Cross -Block Passage Regulations,
Street Tree Public Benefit contribution requirement, Notice Requirement and to
reformat organization of the document in efforts to improve intent and
effectiveness.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.12 was continued to the October 27, 2016Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
Chair Hardemon: And wasn't there something about PZ. 12, as well?
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ. 12 is a City application. It's an
amendment to Miami 21, and we are asking for additional time to conduct additional revisions
of this proposal. We are requesting that it be continued to October 27, as well.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: Move it.
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Properly moved and seconded. Any unreadiness? Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motionpasses.
PZ.13 ORDINANCE First Reading
16-01068zt
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BYAMENDING ARTICLE 1,
ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS", SUBSECTION 1.1(H), ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL",
TO INCLUDE CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6,
TABLE 13; AND BYAMENDING ARTICLE 6, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTAL
REGULATIONS", TO ADD SECTION 6.5, ENTITLED "INDUSTRIAL USES"
AND SUBSECTION 6.5.1, ENTITLED "CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS", TO
ESTABLISH REGULATIONS FOR CONCRETE BATCHING PLANTS IN D2
"INDUSTRIAL" TRANSECT ZONES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Citv ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
SPONSOR(S): Commissioner Wifredo ("Willy") Gort
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDINGS:
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
September 7, 2016, by a vote of 9-0.
PURPOSE: This will modify Article 1 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code, more
specifically by modifying the definition of "Storage and Distribution" in Article 1,
subsection 1.1(h) "Industrial" by adding "Concrete Batching Plants". This will
also amend Article 6 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code to establish regulations for
Concrete Batching Plants only in D2 "Industrial" Transect Zones, through the
Warrant process.
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Vice Chair 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
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.13,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: PZ.13.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.13 is an amendment
to Miami 21, the Zoning Ordinance, which would allow the inclusion of a use to be known as
"Concrete Batching Plants. " This use is proposed to you to be considered only under a
warrant, so that would make it subject to review by staff for technical issues; and it provides, as
you may have read, a significant number of restrictions and a significant number of
considerations prior to its consideration for approval. These uses, of course, would be limited
solely for industrial areas, and the only thing I will add is this: There are really only two major
industrial areas left in the City ofMiami. I will tell you that they are not faring --my policy
apologies --particularly well, as many of the industrial uses are leaving the urban core in the
City. However, because the zoning designation there allows only for having industrial uses,
and pursuant to the safeguards that are being provided in this legislation, we do believe that
concrete batching plants would have a prosperous existence in these areas and would also
benefit the construction industry that exists in the City of Miami. These areas are well suited
for that. The nearing uses are perfectly compatible with the one being proposed here, and of
course -- and I should highlight this, because I know it is a valid concern actually -- there are
distancing requirements, vis-a-vis residential areas, as well as, again, numerous requirements,
which I'm happy to read into the record ifyou'd like, that go directly towards mitigating
potential adverse impacts, as have been expressed in the concerns of some of the speakers.
Happy to answer any questions.
Chair Gort: Move it for discussion.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Gort; seconded by the Vice
Chairman. You're recognized, Commissioner Gort.
Chair Gort: This --let me disclosure. On September 20, at 9 a.m., I met with Jose Diaz from
Metromix; my Chief of Staff, Frank Carollo [sic] -- Frank Castaneda; I'm sorry. Frank
Citv ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Castaneda was in the meeting as well. This is the lot that's been there empty for the last 15
years. It's four acres. It's been cited by the Code Enforcement. It's been cited by the Building
Department to be unsafe structure. And because of due process, it's been therefor 15 years.
Finally, we have a use; they're going to do it. Now, they talked about the -- my understanding
is the environment aspect of this type of business, DERM (Department of Environmental
Resource Management) -- has to go through DERM. It's got to go through all kinds of
permission to be approved. So I -- and right next door to it, there's an existing batch plant that
has been there. So for those reasons, I think the improvements that can be made. And I'd for
the second reading -- when they come back with a second reading, I requested certain plant that
will be facing -- changes that will be facing Northwest 17th Avenue, which is very important for
that corridor.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Vice Chair Russell: Is this going to compete with the concrete factory in my district?
Chair Gort: That's what happens a lot of times. You got the competitors, and they don't want
competition, and competition is very important, especially in the free market.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion.
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. 13.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 4-0.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
PZ.14 RESOLUTION
16-00633cua
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AFFIRMING OR
REVERSING THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD'S DECISION
AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REVOCATION, DATED
AUGUST 13, 2015, OF CERTIFICATE OF USE NO. 1504-000862 FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ATAPPROXIMATELY 2321 SOUTHWEST 16TH
AVENUE AND 2323 SOUTHWEST 16TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
LOCATION: Approximately 2321 SW 16th Ave and 2323 SW 16th Ave
[Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3]
CERTIFICATE OF USE APPLICANT(S): Jorge A. and Rosa Montes
APPELLANT(S) TO PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Hoss
Hernandez, Esquire on behalf of Jorge A. and Rosa Montes
APPELLANT(S) TO CITY COMMISSION: Hoss Hernandez, Esquire on behalf
of Jorge A. and Rosa Montes
Citv ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
FINDINGS:
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended revocation of the
Certificate of Use.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Denied the appeal on May 18,
2016, by a vote of 7-0. Cross-reference File ID 16-00633cu.
PURPOSE: Appealing the decision of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals
Board.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.14 was continued to the October 27, 2016Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ. 14,
please see "Order of the Day. "
Chair Hardemon: For -- Commissioner Carollo, you have a motion to continue or defer to
October 2, PZ. 14?
Commissioner Carollo: To the second meeting in October, which is --
Chair Hardemon: Second meeting in October.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. I guess it'll be a continuance, but to the meeting of -- the second
meeting in October, defer PZ. 14.
Chair Hardemon: All right. Been properly moved. Is there a second?
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been seconded by the Vice Chairman. Any further discussion on that?
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Is -- all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes.
PZ.15 RESOLUTION
16-00741 ha
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING THE
APPEAL FILED BY BRIAN T. JAMES AND NATHALIE CADET JAMES, AND
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH APPROVED THE RECLASSIFICATION OF
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 184 NORTHEAST 45
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO
A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST
Citv ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
HISTORIC DISTRICT.
LOCATION: Approximately - [Commissioner * - District *]
APPELLANT(S): -, Esquire, on behalf of -
APPLICANT(S): -, Esquire, on behalf of -
FINDING(S):
PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended - of the appeal and - of the
designation.
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: -the
designation on - by a vote of -.
PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will exclude the property located at
approximately - as part of the historic designation of the - Historic District.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0464
Chair Hardemon: PZ.15. PZ.15, it's an appeal of the HEP (Historic & Environmental
Preservation) Board decision, 184 Northeast 45th Street. Is this the one where we -- it was
moved to reconsider?
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): That is correct, sir. And I'll add very briefly,
for purposes of clarity, this is the change in designation from a property that is already within
the Buena Vista Historic District from noncontributing to contributing; before you on appeal de
novo, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Correct. And -- you said it, "de novo, " which means that both parties would
have to put enough facts on the record to support their decision, so I want to make that very
clear, so you have to --you know, you can do it -- be sure to put in enough facts to support
whatever decision that you're looking for and also from the HEP Board, whatever decision that
you're looking for, okay?
Ben Fernandez: Commissioner, I have the president of the homeowners association, Mr.
Shiller, that is coming to speak on behalf of the application, as well as the property owner, who
is about to get here. I would ask, if it's possible, to defer this to -- as the last item on the
agenda, to give them an opportunity to be here?
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: So I'll call PZ.15. We're going back to PZ.15, so PZ.15.
Commissioner Carollo: I don't think they're ready.
Chair Hardemon: I see counsel here. I see the applicant. I see Ms. Schmitt. There was an
appeal -- Who represents the appellant? Okay. So is -- before I move forward, sir, do you have
Citv ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
counsel for you? I'm talking to the appellee.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Well, this is -- you represent the appellee?
Mr. Fernandez: No, the appellant.
Chair Hardemon: Oh, because it was a negative decision.
Mr. Fernandez: That's correct.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Got it, got it, got it. All right, so what I'll do then is I'll allow Mr.
Garcia to introduce into -- to introduce the issue that's at hand, and then I'll allow you as the
appellant to put forth facts to show why the decision should be either upheld or denied.
Mr. Fernandez: I will -- well, Mr. Chair, I would say that we had a full hearing on this. This is
a reconsideration only at this point, so I'm glad to hear from staff, but I would only want to add
a couple of things to the record that is already in place, and I would also like to add the fact
that we've had meetings with the association from Buena Vista East, and we have reached an
agreement with them. Mr. Shiller is about to get here, as I understand, to express his support,
for an agreement that we've entered into with them, and I believe at this point, they are
prepared to not oppose and support our appeal. This case has been from the beginning about a
property that is located within the commercial corridor of Northeast 2nd Avenue within Buena
Vista. We have indicated in the record that we believe that its historical significance is
questionable, because of the fact that it is essentially a mishmash of architectural styles that are
not clearly masonry vernacular. I have our project architect, Dean Lewis, who also testified as
to that in the record. But more importantly, from a procedural standpoint, the property -- the
change of the propertyfrom a noncontributing status to a contributing status, we believe,
essentially constitutes a reclassification that would require a specific report under Section
234-C of the Chapter 23 provisions that govern designation of historic properties.
Chair Hardemon: Counselor, do you --the expert that you have that put on the testimony at
the last hearing, is that expert here?
Mr. Fernandez: He is also about to arrive. He'll be available for questions.
Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Right. So this is our issue, and I'll say it to the members of the board: This
is a de novo hearing. And so, the way that I see it, if Ms. Schmitt was able to put on evidence
and you were not able to put on evidence, then she would probably have met her burden and
you not yours, and so I don't want to put anyone in that type of situation. And so, what I would
advise for us all is either we end up continuing both of these two items or we take a small recess
and then come back in 10 minutes, and I do mean 10 minutes, so we'll take a small recess --
Mr. Fernandez: Very good.
Chair Hardemon: -- and come back in 10 minutes.
Mr. Fernandez: Very good.
Chair Hardemon: We're almost there.
City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Later...
Chair Hardemon: So the meeting is back in order. I'm going to call PZ.15. PZ.15.
Unidentified Speaker: Pardon mel
Chair Hardemon: So, this is, in fact, the de novo hearing. I know there will be some facts that
will be supplemented into the record, such as the original findings of the HEP Board and Ms.
Schmitt, and so I wanted to make sure that those things get put into the record so we have a
record of that. But as the appellant, can you please make a brief presentation as to why -- as to
the facts that you would like to put onto the record for us to make our decision 7
Vice Chair Russell: This is 157
Mr. Fernandez: So, once again, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Ben Fernandez, 200 South
Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf of Brian and Natalie Cadet James, the property owners.
This is a reconsideration hearing. We are simply supplementing the record that was created at
the last meeting. In addition to those arguments, we would like to indicate that from a
procedural standpoint, we believe that this is a designation or a change of status from
contributing --from noncontributing to contributing that required an individual report,
pursuant to Chapter 23-4 of the City Code, and the reason is that by definition, a historic
resource is a resource that has significance, and a noncontributing resource is one that doesn't
have significance within the Historic District. The fact is that the Code is silent with respect to
how you change a property's status from contributing to noncontributing. It doesn't explain it.
Your Charter 23 lacks specific standards, so I would say that it -- any decision that is made to a
property, changing it from contributing to noncontributing status, is basically procedurally
incorrect, because there are not specific standards in the City Code to address that change. In
this case, there was a block of properties that were considered together, and that's what was
presented to the Historic Environmental Preservation Board. This was one of them. This one,
we believe, was unique in that it has been part of the Northeast 2nd Avenue commercial
corridor for years. It has been a noncontributing propertyfor over 40 years, and it was
brought into this application, we believe, based on insufficient evidence, and we presented
evidence at the HEP Board that demonstrates that this property really does not rise to the level
of a significant masonry vernacular structure, but from a procedural standpoint, I think it's
clear that this individual report does not appear in the record, and so we have no ability to
respond to specific analysis with respect to this property. And with that, I'd like to ask Mr.
Lewis to come up and explain why he believes that this is not a significant parcel, from an
architectural standpoint. Dean.
Dean Lewis: Good afternoon. Thank you very much. Dean Lewis, with offices at 6301
Biscayne Boulevard. We've been impassioned with historic restoration, rehabilitation projects
for a number of years, including the infamous Vagabond Hotel, and a number of others,
Cushman Master Plan, and we are also working on -- in the Buena Vista historic neighborhood.
It's important not to find too many contributing structures within an in -between, watered down
state, and I kind of want to go through this to perhaps -- sometimes you compromise the
opportunity to do better and a stronger, historically contributing projects. In this case, to the
facts, the property consists of two two-story CBS (concrete block structure) structures,
completed in approximately the same time period, 1947, early '50s. Remember, the period of
significance here is 1920's to '30s; granted, with all due respect, your staff has requested the
extension of that period and added additional styles to their contributing status. In this case,
we have a number of reasons to exclude this property that I want to get into. "Continuing the
street front structure with its front porch entry and exterior side stair to the second floor
appears to be configured for duplex multifamily. The stair has a quirky bay enclosure, poorly
detailed at the second level, which compromises the stair's design authenticity. The rear
City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
structure is fair to poor in massing and in architectural detail and as well lacks stylistic
definition and consistency. It is pale, at best, associated here to masonry vernacular style,
which is often more of a catch-all designation for marginal or incomplete residential design
than truly characteristic contributing structures, " as in this case. By definition, true masonry
vernacular style accentuates masonry detailing and stone textures, of which here there are
none. Smooth stucco finishing throughout starts to further negate the essence of this example.
In fact, true masonry vernacular, as per City definition -- description, which is attached to my
letter and underlined for your reference, as well as a couple photographs, employs exterior
finishes, such as rough textured stucco -- here, the stucco is smooth -- rusticated rock faced
concrete block, ofwhich there is here none, or coquina. Furthermore, contrary to true masonry
vernacular, there are no rusticated concrete block, molded, or otherwise, to simulate cut stone.
There are no diamond composition shingles, as is prevalent in masonry vernacular pitched
roofs. On the contrary, there's a hipped roof with Mediterranean style barrel vaulted tiles. No
exposed, articulated lintels over windows are expressed here, nor are there any cast stone
columns, piers, or dormer windows. All of this is to be found within the masonry vernacular, as
per this City's historical definition and composition found within their historic report. So as we
continue, the detailing of these buildings are rather common and unoriginal in nature. There is
no significantly historic nor architectural contributions. The buildings are, at best, a weak
eclectic example of more than one architectural style reference, such as Mediterranean, which I
referenced earlier, with its barrel vaulted tiles. In conclusion, it does not faithfully represent
the reigning years of masonry vernacular of the 1840's to present, nor does it faithfully
represent the Mediterranean revival architectural of 1917 to 1930. It's caught between styles,
in spite of its imitation barrel tile, hipped roofs. Therefore, by definition and example, in spite
of a few details eclectically assembled here, previously mentioned, it is not a strong original
representative design, and in my opinion, does not pass the required test of integrity as defined
by the State oflnterior as required for contributing status; Secretary oflnterior Standards, to
be most precise. Remember, in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards, the fact
that a building has obtained 50 years of age, as in this case, does not automatically classify it
as historically contributing. It is only a first point of consideration of historically significant
contributing status, our first point. It allows you to qualify to be considered. In response to the
statement that "Over time, a neighborhood's period of significance may evolve, " again, just
because a handful of buildings recently come of 50 years of age, they do not automatically
become justifiable as historically significant contributions to any particular neighborhood. In
fact, the more watered down a neighborhood becomes, with weaker examples of contemporary
styles throughout the years that are found throughout the region, the less historically significant
the neighborhood as a whole may become. Buena Vista needs to take equitable consideration
of its historic commercial corridor, as well, along Northeast 2nd Avenue; Mr. Fernandez' point.
Existing structures that were originally more commercial in original use or have the ease of
ability to serve commercial mixed use rehabilitation, as is the goals of Miami 21 so well
scribed, should be recognized moreover significant than generic single use residential
structures, such as this property. Thank you very much. I remain available for any questions.
Chair Hardemon: And the Board would like to take judicial notice of him being an expert on
the opinion. It was without an objection from Ms. Schmitt. That's fine without objection?
Ms. Schmitt: Without objection.
Chair Hardemon: Would you like to have any questions of him, any cross-examination of their
witness?
Ms. Schmitt. No. I disagree with somethings that I'll put on the record, but I don't have any
questions.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Sir, do you have any further evidence to put on the record?
City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Fernandez: I would like to add that, as I stated previously, we've had meetings with the
Buena Vista East Homeowners Association, and we have reached an agreement with them.
They are not objecting to our application. I don't know if Mr. Shiller is here and would like to
speak. I believe he is, so I don't want to speak for him. Whenever the time is right --
Chair Hardemon: Well—
Mr. Fernandez: I realize that this is an appeal.
Chair Hardemon: Are you going to allow him to -- Right, this is an appeal.
Mr. Fernandez: I realize that this is --
Chair Hardemon: So obviously, you want to include a declaration of restrictive covenants into
the record.
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Chair Hardemon: And so, if you want to do that, you can qualify his authenticity by --
Mr. Fernandez: Well, I will gladly add it to the record. However, I have had a conversation
with counsel, and this is a private covenant. This is not a covenant for the benefit of the City; it
is for the benefit of the Association, but we're glad to share it with all of you.
Rafael Suarez -Rivas (Senior Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chair, that would go into the record
for informational purposes, but it's not a covenant that's being proffered to the Commission for
acceptance.
Chair Hardemon: So can you explain to the Commission what would be the effect of having a
covenant that hasn't properly been recorded before the Commission?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Well, Mr. Fernandez, I think, wants to bring to the attention of the
Commission that certain surrounding persons are in -- that -- are in agreement with limitations
that the owner is placing on the future development of this property, but insofar as it's not a
covenant that came through in the process through any board or action of any City official, but
it's rather an agreement between private parties, it's not the kind of covenant that you accept
here.
Chair Hardemon: Now, would we be allowed to, for instance, either -- if we were to say,
"granting the appeal by the appellant, " could we grant the appeal and include within it a
covenant to run with the land?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Well, this is a de novo appeal, and if you wanted to grant the appeal and the
appellant wanted to stipulate on the record that they voluntarily, you know, will abide by this
covenant and make that representation, and that they will record it to make it of record, in the
public records, I think that would be within the province of this body, in my view.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir.
Mr. Fernandez: So, essentially, the covenant assures that this property is not to be developed
in conjunction with the abutting lot to the west. That is the gist of the covenant.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any other evidence that you would like to put on?
City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Fernandez: No, there's not.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt.
Vice Chair Russell: I have a question.
Chair Hardemon: You have a question. That's fine.
Vice Chair Russell: Could you explain what that means by not be developed together with the
abutting lot? Means one could be developed independently?
Mr. Rivas -Suarez -Rivas: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: The other end, independently, but not at the same time?
Mr. Fernandez: Not together as one project.
Vice Chair Russell: They can't be joined?
Mr. Fernandez: They can't be joined.
Vice Chair Russell: But they could be developed separately?
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Vice Chair Russell: So really, is it accomplishing anything?
Chair Hardemon: Within the Zoning Code, I think part of what the concern is for the
neighborhood is that the --
Commissioner Suarez: Cannot be commercial.
Chair Hardemon: Well, better -- you should explain your covenant, please.
Mr. Fernandez: The property that you're considering is presently part of the commercial
corridor.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: Let me explain it to you visually, so you get a much better idea.
Chair Hardemon: Can you provide him a wireless microphone?
Mr. Fernandez: This is Northeast 2nd Avenue. The property in blue is the property that you're
considering now. The beige overlay is the commercial extent of the corridor. The property
clearly falls within the commercial corridor, which has been our argument from the beginning
as to why most of the properties in the corridor are not significant historically to begin with;
this one shouldn't be. But in addition to that, the neighbors have a concern that there will be
some spillover of commercial use; or that, eventually, there may be an attempt to rezone or
somehow bring in these properties as commercial uses to the west. My client, their family also
owns the lot to the west, so that concern was very apparent to them. It's a different zoning
City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
district. It's a single-family zoning district, and there's no intention to develop the property
together with that. So the purpose of the covenant is simply to provide them with an assurance
that that will not happen.
Unidentified Speaker: To make one larger --
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay, it wasn't fully clear to me. I understand what you're saying. I just
don't know if it's fully clear within the covenant.
Mr. Fernandez: And I would have explained it, except that it is covenant for the benefit of the
Association. We're happy to discuss it with you.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt, you're recognized.
Ms. Schmitt: Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Megan Schmitt, Preservation Officer with the
Cityof Miami. I just would like to talk a little bit about the materials that I handed out earlier.
The first document that I'd like to bring to everyone's attention -- actually, it does answer one
of the questions that came up at the last hearing. So when -- after the last hearing, I went back
into our files. We had just actually relocated from one cubicle to another, and we were able to
find a file that I hadn't had access to prior. And the -- if you could take a look at this document
here, it's a letter that is dated June 19, 1987. It's directed to Sarah Eaton, who was the Historic
Preservation Planner at the time. It was written to her by Caridad Sala, who was the Historic
Preservation Consultant who did the actual survey for the Buena Vsta East Historic District.
And about the -- half -way through -- it's sort of a wrap-up letter to say, "Okay, the survey's
done, it's complete, and here are the deliverables. " If you can go to the paragraph, 'As
mentioned in the designation report, criteria used to determine contributing status is based on a
cutoff date of 1936, as well as the extent of alteration or preservation of the architectural
fabric. " So there was a lot of discussion at the last hearing. Well, how did the --? What was
the cutoff date? How did it get determined that this particular structure that we're talking
about today was never considered to be contributing? I believe that I conjectured that it was,
in fact, because of a 50 year limit. Anything that was not 50 years at the time was not
considered, but I think that this hopefully can show that that was an accurate assumption, but
it's nice to have the proof. So just to reiterate, anything that was not 50 years old in 1987 when
the area was surveyed was not even considered as either contributing. It just went to
noncontributing by default, because it was not 50 years. I'll be brief, because I know we've
discussed a lot of this before. But I just want to put on the record from my office's perspective
to speak to the procedural issues. I don't agree when you do an individual designation report,
extensive research is conducted for that one individual structure. So you look to see if someone
significant lived there. You look to see if it was a significant builder. You look to see if some
significant event happened. When we do designations for Historic Districts, we do precisely the
procedure that we followed for the resurvey back in the spring. So what we do is we look at
each building, and we look at its existing conditions. We look to see if it's been altered, and we
do that by comparing it to the tax photo. So from my office's perspective, we actually followed
the exact procedure that we would have had we been doing a brand-new historic designation for
a district. So I just wanted to respond to that, because I disagree with the procedural error
that's being presented by the appellants. So just to kind of cover some quick bullets, I just want
to be clear that regardless of being contributing or noncontributing, a structure at the time of
designation in a historic district is, in fact, designated. So this building has been designated
since 1987. We've established that it was not at the time eligible for consideration as a
contributing structure. Our resurvey found otherwise. I also want to put this in a little bit more
of a context, which is that it's true; if this building was to be considered on its own as an
individual landmark, had no one important lived there, had no one -- had nothing very
City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
important happened, it may not rise to the level of an individual designation. The point of a
historic district is to -- that you catch the sense of place. And so we have I believe it's 46 other
vernacular -- masonry vernacular buildings in the district. So I just want to put it out there that
the idea that we're doing this as a district, I definitely think that if we're going to -- we had to
apply it sort of equally. So our analysis took into consideration that this style of architecture
exists in the Historic District, and we see that they're not particularly altered, and we recognize
them for what they are, and we feel that they do deserve the contributing status. I just want to
also put out there that we're not the only community that's going through this. Miami's a young
city, as we all know. And other communities are doing similar re-evaluations. So I reached out
to a consultant in the City of Huntsville, Alabama, completed a successful resurvey of their
Twickenham Historic District. When it was listed on the National Register in 1973, many of the
homes built in the 1920's to 1950's were too young to qualify as eligible. That's the same
predicament that Buena Vista was in. And at the back of your packet, just because I thought it
would be helpful, if you look at the page that says, "Top medical plans of 2016, " it's actually a
feed of a -- like a planner board where people can post questions, and I just want to read the
first one to you. "Hello, fellow planners. " This is from a poster in -- somebody who posted
from Florida. "I'm seeking input on a historic preservation challenge that we're facing.
Currently, there are seven Historic Districts located within the City. Each district was
designated and added after the structures were surveyed and deemed contributing or
noncontributing, depending on age, characteristics, et cetera, at various times, within the last
20 years. My historic board just recently denied the demo of a project based on the fact that
they deemed the structure historic; that it's 50 years or older, even though it was not considered
contributing at the time of the survey, but would be now if it was resurveyed. " So I want to
make that really clear. "It would be considered contributing now if we had been resurveyed."
The applicant also submitted -- this isn't relevant, but the ask is -- the question is, "How does
your organization deal with historic structures that are not considered contributing but are
considered historic? " So it goes on with other back and forth, but a lot of the posts are, "Hey,
we're going through a very similar thing. " So I wanted to present that today because I felt like
that wasn't made clear enough at the last hearing, that we're not the only city that's going
through the need to resurvey their historic districts. And then finally, to speak to some of what
Mr. Lewis pointed out. What I would like to indicate -- well, what I'd like to share with you is if
you -- and there's a tax photo of the property in your packet. If you look at the building, it had
the file roof then that it still has now, so it's quirky. Is it a typical masonry vernacular? No, it's
not, but it's also not particularly altered. And the points, sort of, this genre of architecture
when we talk about masonry vernacular is that it didn't necessarily follow one strict rule, so we
do stand by our original assessment that it deserves to be contributing.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair?
Chair Hardemon: Before you -- I have a question for you. If you have -- if you are in a
Historic District, you, as a Preservation Officer, must determine if a property is contributing or
noncontributing?
Ms. Schmitt: I make a recommendation, and the HEP approves it.
Chair Hardemon: So if a property --so given all the facts that you consider, you've determined
that a property is, say, noncontributing, right? Given all the facts, you determine that a
property is contributing. But if you never consider the property, at all, what would that
property be properly titled?
Ms. Schmitt: It would not be in the Historic District. We have to designate the district, and we
have to assign it a classification.
City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I make a motion?
Chair Hardemon: You can.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I move to accept the appeal, subject to the covenant presented,
based on the testimony before us today.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept the appeal based off
of the -- accept the appeal, inclusive of the covenant that's been presented. Is there any further
discussion about that?
Mr. Garcia: May I?
Chair Hardemon: No?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Garcia: Mayl?
Chair Hardemon: Vice --
Vice Chair Russell: I had questions for Megan, similar to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Oh, Vice Chairman, sure.
Vice Chair Russell: So Megan, if I understand correctly, the bar for historic designation or
contributing in a district is much lower than it is on its own on a house outside of a district?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct, it would be different, because the significance of becoming an individual
-- individually -designated landmark, the level ofarchitectural significance -- and that's what
we're talking about here -- would really need to set it apart. The strength of the Historic
District and the masonry vernacular is in its context as much as it is in its integrity.
Vice Chair Russell: Right. So it seems for a district, it's not about the specific historical value
Of each house so much as you're trying to create a time capsule of the area that when you drive
through, it looks as much as it did 50 years ago as possible. I mean, the difficultyfor us here,
obviously, is that this is somebody's nest egg, somebody's life, you know, investment; and with
the bar being lower in districts, it makes a very difcult for decision -- and I know that we made
some contributing that are very similar to this house, very similar style, same staircase on the
side, you know, and so the difficulty here is to say `yes "for one but "no " to the other, and are
we to take into consideration the will of the owner at all in a district like this, when it's not, you
know, historically significant, not architecturally necessarily significant, and certainly not any
person famous lived there, or historic event happened there? Are we to take the will of the
applicant -- I mean, of the resident in -- at all?
Ms. Schmitt: I know it's something that my office can't do. We have to apply our analysis
consistently and evenly across the board. So that's where -- when we take things to the HEP
City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Board, sometimes they take into consideration more than the staff is able to.
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair?
Ms. Schmitt: Because if someone's personal --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. No, when you're finished.
Ms. Schmitt: I just want to say, with all due respect, with someone's personal situation with
their investment is just outside of the scope of what we can take into consideration.
Vice Chair Russell: Right, of course. Mr. Fernandez, the covenant does not restrict at all that
they would be able to flatten this place next year and build something else in its place, right?
The covenant simply says --
Mr. Fernandez: Truly not.
Vice Chair Russell: -- they can't combine --
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and develop together, but it doesn't protect this structure at all, correct?
Mr. Fernandez: It does not.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Ms. Schmitt: But the demolition would still have to be approved by the HEP Board.
Chair Hardemon: By the HEP Board, correct.
Mr. Fernandez: That's correct. And if I could just --
Commissioner Suarez: A noncontributing -- it would be a noncontributing structure under that
Ms. Schmitt: Be a noncontributing structure that would still have to be approved by the HEP
Board.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chair, from a procedural standpoint, I would just like to, for the record,
object that the new evidence that was presented before this board -- although it is a de novo
hearing, the Code does require that this kind of evidence be presented to the HEP Board, which
it wasn't, even though we don't believe that it's significant. We just want to state that for the
record.
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Chair, just procedurally in rebuttal, it is a de novo hearing, which
means a new hearing, and the Code is clear that the Commission can consider new evidence.
City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, Commissioner.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I'll be very brief. I voted in the opposition in the last hearing,
and I didn't really expect to certainly make the motion. I think the issue for me was -- what I
said at the last hearing was it was a very close case because you had a zoning overlay, which
also gave the impression, if you're a buyer, that this was going to be a commercial property, so
I think that was also something that was influential. And I think, you know, the fact that the
neighbor -- Because remember, what we're talking about here is whether a structure is
contributing or noncontributing. We just heard testimony that even if it's noncontributing, you
still have to go to the HEP Board to get a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the
property. So there's just -- it's sort of a fine line, you know. Based on the testimony at the last
one, I think I was sort of inclined in the fine line to go the other way. Based on the testimony
here today and the covenant that's proffered, you know, that fine line for me tilts back into the
other direction. That's just my rationale.
Chair Hardemon: And if I may add, one of the things that I found to be particular about this
property is that Ms. Schmitt offered testimony that basically stated that this property is not one
that is to be considered -- it's not masonry vernacular, particularly, and evidence was put on by
opposing counsel that stated that this home did not fit the masonry vernacular style in which it's
being deemed to be contributing for, and so -- I mean, with that information, the only
unreadiness that I have is that I would like for the appellant to stipulate on the record that it
would abide by a declaration of a covenant, a restricted covenant on this property so that it
won't be joined with another --
Commissioner Suarez: That's my motion, too.
Chair Hardemon: --property.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, absolutely.
Chair Hardemon: Can you state exactly what you're saying on the record?
Mr. Fernandez: We state that we will abide by the terms of the covenant proffered.
Chair Hardemon: All right. And so that -- and that covenant's put into the record, correct?
Commissioner Suarez: Yep.
Chair Hardemon: It has already been entered into the record, the covenant? Does the Clerk
have a copy of the covenant?
Mr. Hannon: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Hannon: But, again, it's between two private parties, so it's not going to be made part of
the legislation; it'll be a backup document. It'll be a part of the legislative file.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) finding by us.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Garcia. Oh, I'm sorry.
Vice Chair Russell: Hey.
City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Hey.
Mr. Garcia: I'm most flattered, but no thank you, sir. I wanted -- on that issue, I wanted to
introduce at least a couple of remarks. I have had an opportunity to read the covenant now,
which I hadn't done previously. I want to echo the sentiment of the City Clerk, which is that
there are no terms in this covenant that are enforceable by the City of Miami and there is no
benefit in this covenant that inures to the City of Miami, and there is a scenario whereby the
terms of this covenant could run counter to future decisions made by the City Commission. So
unless there is very -- and I'll give you an example. For instance, if the City Commission, as
has done previously in -- as part of the NCD -3 (Neighborhood Conservation District), were to
determine that lots that are presently owned by the same owner are not to be subdivided in the
future and are to be developed jointly, if that ordinance were to be passed to preserve a
character or size of lots in a certain area, that decision of a future Commission would run
counter to this covenant. Again, it would supersede the covenant, right, but we would find
ourselves in a position where the City Commission today accepted a covenant seemingly that
contradicts the action of a future City Commission. So I have some concerns; properly better
determined by attorneys, but I wanted to raise the flag at least.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I was --
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Chair, I'll just add that in a conversation, I had expressed the viewpoint
that the covenant was private and was not germane to the appeal, but of course, we cannot
control what applicants or appellants proffer or do, but it's up to the Commission. But if the
covenant is to be referred to, mindful of what the director has said, you may want to just phrase
it as, you know, "The City Commission has noted " or "has taken notice of a private covenant
proffered by the appellant, "you know, but it really -- no. As I said, it's not a covenant that has
come through the City or is part of any City process.
Chair Hardemon: But my question for you --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chair Hardemon: -- could the community association enforce that covenant --
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Chair Hardemon: -- in a court of law?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Garcia: Presumably.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: The named beneficiaries of the covenant are the Buena Vista East Historic
Neighborhood, you know, Association, Inc., which is a -- you know, the local neighborhood
association of Buena Vista.
Chair Hardemon: So they could apply for -- say, for instance --
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: They could apply for relief, specific enforcement, injunction, whatever, you
know, but yes, it would not be a City matter. This is not a City covenant. And again, I'm
City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
mindful and agree with what your director said.
Commissioner Suarez: But it is an enforceable covenant between two parties. It's a legal
document that, if recorded, would be enforceable?
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: I just want to make sure that everyone understands that.
Mr. Garcia: And one more briefpoint, ifI may, simply to address an issue raised by, I believe,
Chair Hardemon. The statement in the presentation made by Mr. Dean Lewis is, I think,
correct to the extent that he highlights how this particular structure is not purely representative
of the masonry vernacular, which it's generally a component of. However, I think that point
was effectively addressed by Preservation Officer Megan Schmitt in saying that although
admittedly, it is a quirky example of masonry vernacular. It is quirky in exactly the same way
as many other masonry vernacular structures are within the Buena Vista Historic District, and
that is precisely why it contributes to a legacy memory of what the character of the area is, and
should be preserved in essentially the same form. I know she made the point. I know it's in the
record. But sometimes, because it's made technically, it's lost on the ears of the audience, and I
just wanted to make that point clear. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: With this structure being considered -- if this structure was to be considered
a noncontributing structure, would this appellant still have to find themselves before the HEP
Board to make changes to their property?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Garcia: Absolutely.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Schmitt: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Because it's in a historic area.
Chair Hardemon: All right, then I have no further unreadiness.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. It was a close one last time.
Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the appeal, say so by saying, "aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against?
Commissioner Suarez: Congrats.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Mr. Fernandez: Thankyou.
PZ.16 RESOLUTION
16-00930ha
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE APPEAL
City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
FILED BY DOUGLAS C. BOEKER, MELANIE BOEKER, JUDY MILLER,
CAROLINE R. MEEK, OBDULIO MENENDEZ, MARIA DE LOS A. MENENDEZ,
ANTHONY M. O'ROURKE, SAHARA M. PORTALES, JESUS I. MENENDEZ,
SANDRA I. MENENDEZ, CHRISTOPHER CULBERT, KARA CULBERT, AND
MARIA T. FERNANDEZ AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT 545 NORTHEAST 55
TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
LOCATION: Approximately XXXXX [Commissioner Keon Hardemon -
District 5]
APPLICANT(S): XXXXX
APPELLANT(S): XXXXX, property owner
FINDING(S):
PRESERVATION OFFICE: Recommended XXXXXI.
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: XXXXX.
PURPOSE: This will allow the demolition of a contributing resource, and
new construction of a single-family home.
Motion by Vice Chair 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-16-0465
Chair Hardemon: PZ.16.
Vice Chair Russell: I have Jennings on both of these.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thankyou, sir. PZ.16?
Chair Hardemon: PZ.16, correct.
Mr. Garcia: Yes. I'll read it briefly into the record. PZ.16 is an appeal of a Historic &
Environmental Preservation Board decision, granting a certificate of appropriateness for new
construction of a single-family residential structure at 545 Northeast 55th Terrace. Once
again, briefly, the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board approved the design, as
recommended by the Preservation Office. And before you sits an appeal from, I understand,
some adjacent property owners. Happy to answer any questions. You may think -- the
Preservation Officer, Ms. Megan Schmitt is happy to present a full report.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. If I can have -- the HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation)
Board will be on this side, so Ms. Megan Schmitt; and then those who filed the appeal, can you
Citv ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
come on this side for the [sic] lectern -- to the lectern? I'm not sure who filed the appeal. So
here, it says the appeal was filed by a Douglas -- I believe you pronounce that Broeker --
Melanie Broeker, Judy Miller, Caroline Meek, Obdulio Menendez, Maria De Los A. Melendez,
Anthony M. O'Rourke, Sahara M. Portales, Jesus Menendez, Sandra Menendez, Christopher
Culbert, Kara Culbert, and Maria Fernandez. So all of those people will be -- will they be
represented by counsel? Guests? Okay. So we're on this side. So I'm assuming -- sir, you're
counsel?
Neisen Kasdin: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ChairHardemon: Can you announce yourselffor the record?
Mr. Kasdin: I'm here on the -- I'm the pro bono counsel for the appellants; live at 538
Northeast 55th Terrace.
ChairHardemon: Okay.
Mr. Kasdin: And I missed how you wanted to us to present. Do you want us to go first?
ChairHardemon: Well, no. No, no. What I'll do is I'll allow the HEP Board to present its facts
first, and then I'll allow you to respond. And if there's any cross-examination of the evidence
that you want to put on, I'll let you put that on, and then I'll have --she'll have an opportunity
to respond to that. Sir (UNINTELLIGIBLE) counsel.
Mr. Kasdin: Yeah. Mr. Chair --
Vice Chair Russell: Jennings.
Mr. Kasdin: -- we represent the appellee.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, okay. Got it. And at this time, I'll allow any of our -- typically, we
can do it before our votes are cast, but if you have a Jennings disclosure that you want to make,
you can make that now.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My staff and I have attended two meetings with the
neighborhoods between the applicant and -- on PZ. 16 I also spoke with Neisen Kasdin last
night to invite him today to arrange a meeting in my office with neighbors. If the applicant
wishes to have a continuance, that is going to be deferred to the next regularly scheduled item
of the Commission to afford ample time for the applicant to refute any information. This
communication has not swayed me in any fashion. I continue to be impartial about this, as I
was prior to the communication. My disclosure will be made part of the record. Thank you.
ChairHardemon: Counselor, would you like to -- as far as the --you being an attorney for the
appellee, would you like to present first and then be followed by Megan Schmitt?
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair, I think that in the past, the order has always been the appellants, since
they're the ones challenging the approval, then we would respond to that.
ChairHardemon: Okay.
Mr. Kasdin: I would also say, ifI may, we had been engaged to the offices of Commissioner
Russell, and in a negotiation now about a resolution of this matter. And I would turn to Mr.
Roker [sic] to see if -- we have not concluded that, but to see if that is something that could be
concluded and avoid the need for a hearing, Mr. Chair.
City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Roker [sic]?
Douglas Broeker: Thank you. First, the neighbor who is most engaged and most affected is on
her way and hasn't -- I haven't had an opportunity to review this with her. And my feeling is
that with what happened at the HEP Board, it might be productive for the Commission to hear
just what we have to say about it, since we're here to talk about it, on the understanding with
the applicant that we want a dialogue with them about their proposal, but I feel somewhat
constrained because the main appellant --
Vice Chair Russell: Is that Judy?
Mr. Broeker: -- Judy Miller, is somewhere in transit between Morningside and here.
Chair Hardemon: Usually, at times like this, counselors will ask for a deferral so you have the
additional time to consider the -- you know, the issues, but I mean, this is --
Vice Chair Russell: How far away is she? 10 minutes? Are we back to 15, Ben? I'm only
kidding, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Broeker: Could we take, perhaps, a 15 -minute break and see where she is?
Chair Gort: Take a break.
Chair Hardemon: I know -- I see PZ. 15 -- at least the applicant for PZ. 15 is here. So for
PZ. 16, what I can do is, if you want to wait until she arrives, I'll call PZ. 15 to allow that
process to begin, and then we'll call back PZ. 16, because you may have come to a resolution.
Mr. Broeker: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Is that fair?
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair, just don't take PZ. 15 too fast.
Vice Chair Russell: This was going to be a world record Commission meeting. We were going
to be done by 5.
Mr. Kasdin: It's moving awfully fast.
Chair Hardemon: All right, thank you very much.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: PZ.16.
Mr. Garcia: PZ. 16, I believe, is back before you after a brief hiatus. Again, just to place that
on the record and clarify, it is an appeal of a HEP Board decision to issue a certificate of
appropriateness for a proposed development at 545 Northeast 55th Terrace of a single-family
residence within the Morningside Historic District.
Chair Hardemon: I know that with PZ. 16 that there was some discussion about possibly coming
to some agreement?
Mr. Broeker: Yes. My apologies, because two of my neighbors were still back in the
City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner's conference room discussing this.
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name again for the record.
Mr. Broeker: I'm sorry. Douglas Broeker, 538 Northeast 55th Terrace, one of the appellants
that live across the street from the vacant lot, and I'm pro bono counsel for my neighbors who
are here. Maybe I should ask my neighbors to stand up for your benefit, everybody who's here
from Morningside. And so we were presented this afternoon with a proposal, and some of my
neighbors -- we thought that because we were PZ. 16 that we would probably be late and after
dinner. I got a message this morning -- and I apologize; I didn't hear it last night, but I got a
message about 11:30 this morning asking us to meet at 2 o'clock. Some of our neighbors,
probably the most significantly affected, just got here and looked it over, so what we'd like to do
is ask for a deferral in order to consider it and meet further, and see if we can iron some things
out. So I guess the question is, is there an objection to a deferral or --?
Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) record.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Is the representative for the homeowner here? I'd like to hear
what their thought is on that.
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair --
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Kasdin: -- and members of the Commission, Neisen Kasdin and Marissa Amuial of
Akerman, representing the owner, the Esparzas. In fact, Mr. Jose Esparza is here; flew in from
Puerto Rico for this hearing, and the architects are here with me as well today; his daughter,
Lissette Esparza, and German Brun. This matter has already been continued before the City
Commission last time. We will, if this case proceeds, show extensive outreach and
communication with the neighbors in the neighborhood. We did try to get together with them
over the last few weeks to get specific objections that they might have had for the approval, the
position, and it's -- I have it in correspondence here from their attorney was, "We don't want to
discuss anything until the appeal" -- "until this approval is reversed, and then we can discuss. "
And so notwithstanding that, Mr. German and Lissette came forward with certain suggested
changes to accommodate what they perceived to be the issues from the neighbors, and they are
substantial. And they -- in some, they reduce the height, increase the setback of the second
floor, flip the garage, which is what they perceived to be an issue that Ms. Miller had. And
remember, this is something that was approved by a 7-0 vote by the Historic Preservation
Board; and with a staff report, which you will see, which lauded its -- how it fit into the historic
neighborhood, and adopted so many important architectural elements. So the long and short of
it is we are ready to proceed. We have the owner of the property; flew in just today for this
particular hearing, and we do not want to defer. And then we think, as you see the
presentation, you'll see --I will tell you, Ideal with a lot of houses. I've seen a lot of houses in
Miami Beach and Gables, and other areas. This is the most restrained, most respectful, most
modest addition I -- new home I have seen in any of these neighborhoods, and we're ready to
proceed, and would ask to proceed.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Mr. Kasdin, I really appreciate that you and the neighbors
have gotten together and are working in a spirit of cooperation here. I attended the meeting,
Morningside Civic Association, and I hear the passion. I hear the anger of what they feel is not
going to fit in with the historic neighborhood. I spoke with Megan Schmitt, who said, when this
was presented and the way it was presented, it was sort of the gold standard of what she would
City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
hope someone would bring in terms of a new construction in a Historic District, not to copy or
pretend to build a historic building, but to build something perhaps modern that gives the
appropriate nod and has the right contextual, you know, significance that fits in. What I did
see, however, at that meeting, which really jumped out at me, which I may be reading between
the lines, but -- especially Judy, the neighbors, you know, on either side is whether it fit in with
the massing and scale of -- you know, of the historic neighborhood and especially of that row of
homes right there that were all first -story bungalows; that it just jumped out as such a large
structure that it was -- you know, it seemed that that was causing the full reaction, which, you
know, pushed back on every part of the project. I don't know how strongly you all feel about
the stylistic elements of the house. I do see a lot of nods to the historic neighborhood from the
barrel the screen to various elements, the eyebrow, different things like that. I see a lot of effort
there, and that's why I think Historic & Environmental Preservation Board saw it positively, but
they also didn't feel enough resistance from the neighborhood at that meeting. I thinkJudy
attended but others didn't, and I don't know. It -- I -- the sense I got was, had the neighbors
shown up the way they did at that meeting and the way they're here tonight, HEP Board might
have had a different ruling on the -- on it. You know, feeling from the neighborhood where --
whether this project fit in or not, but I'm really curious to see how far they came to your side in
terms of addressing those issues, and if they did, I would be apt to move forward with it. If it's
-- you know, is -- I know you all have -- it's been a bit short noticed, but you all have worked
with them and there --is it that you just need to mull it over more, or you feel it wasn't enough?
You'd like to push more on them for different changes or--? I guess, you know, I understand
the owner's flown in from Puerto Rico, and I see a lot of good faith effort here. Stalling isn't
going -- not that you're stalling, but, you know, waiting another few weeks, I don't know that
would make much difference, unless there's further negotiation to be done. I got to -- I kind of
got the sense that maybe something was getting worked out, so I just wanted to hear how the
progress was.
Judy Miller: You know, I think the problem is, is that we -- because we didn't get the message --
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record, please.
Ms. Miller: I'm sorry. Judy Miller, 537 Northeast 55 Terrace.
Chair Hardemon: I want to be clear that this is about the continuance and not -- it's not
concerning all the merits of the case.
Ms. Miller: Yeah. I mean, to answer your question, it's mulling. I mean, we -- I literally just
got here, and most of us did, like an hour ago. And we're looking at this for the first time, and
just want a little bit more -- I haven't even had a chance to sit down with German yet and have
him present it. So what we talked about was, could we defer it so we can sit down and, you
know, talk about it? But that doesn't seem to be an option.
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Miller: I just feel like it's not -- I haven't been given -- and I think most of us feel like we
haven't been given adequate time to look at this compromised position. And actually, I would
have to push back on what he said about the compromised meeting -- and you've been copied
on the emails -- is that we had a meeting set up at the Morningside Park to do this very thing,
and they said they wanted to come here to enforce their vote, so the meeting got canceled.
Mr. Kasdin: May I, Mr. Chair?
Ms. Miller: So instead, we get here and we get a compromise, you know, to look at for an
hour? That doesn't seem right.
City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Counselor --
Ms. Miller: I appreciate what they did, but it just seems like we should get some time.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, counselor.
Mr. Kasdin: May I, Mr. Chair? Without getting too far in the weeds here, I must say this.
Commissioner's office called both sides to a meeting earlier in the day. All the other -- the
attorney and the other key appellants all showed up at 2 o'clock. Ms. Miller was, as reported
by Mr. Broeker to the group, on her way; "was stuck in traffic, " I think was exactly his words.
Could he -- he took -- we presented the few pages, showing the reduction and the changes in the
plans, which he took pictures of, and for the purpose of sending it to Ms. Miller. When Ms.
Miller arrived here some 45 minutes or more ago, I offered that sit -- have Mr. Brun, the
architect, sit with her and go through this. So I think that this -- and you'll see. We'll -- you'll
seethe changes, as well. It's very straightforward and very favorable. The other thing I would
point out just for the record, since it's been mentioned as part of the reason for continuance of
this deferral -- and I will submit this as part of the record -- on June 6 there was a letter from
the appellants to the HEP Board, expressing their objection to the project. They were aware of
it. They prepared a letter, they drafted a letter, and they sent it to the HEP Board. The final
thing about meeting with them -- and this is important, because we all confront this in
government, as well -- we have said, and I have the email correspondence; I'm happy to share it
with you, we are willing to meet with them. We were going to meet with them. The Brun -- the
Bruns were going to meet with them. We said -- but they said, "We will not meet unless what we
discuss is confidential. " And I said that "There's nothing that we will discuss that we are not
willing to discuss before the Commission. " In all my years in government, I know that those
kinds of meetings are used to say things in private that you will not say in public. There's
nothing we are not willing to talk about in public before the Commission. The second thing I
asked for was a specific list, so we would have an informed discussion, of what changes they
wanted, and Mr. Broeker responded. His response was -- and I'll read it to you, as well -- that
"We'll talk about the changes after this is " -- "goes back to the HEP Board and is reversed. "
So we have tried, tried for months to meet and reach with them -- reach out to them and meet
with them and go through this. And so we are --we stand here ready to go and present to you
what we would have presented to them.
Mr. Broeker: IfI may respond --
Chair Hardemon: Mr. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Broeker: -- Mr. Mayor and Vice Chairman -- or Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman? First of
all, it's important to understand that what the HEP Board did in this case is outrageous. They
approved something, saying that the massing scale were okay when a similar project that was
significantly smaller on the same lot was denied back in 2002. If we go through our
presentation today, we will demonstrate to you how the HEP Board was completely misled and
didn't even consider the applicable law. So that's one of the things that's motivating us here, is
we want you guys to hear what happened in front of the HEP Board, because it's outrageous.
Vice Chair Russell: So rather than continuing, we should hear it?
Chair Hardemon: You're ready to move forward?
Mr. Broeker: Well, no, because we're seriously interested in the proposal that they made, but as
I said, I didn't get the message about the meeting until almost noon. I got the word to my
neighbors as best I could. They got down here as fast as they could. Some were here at 2. I
City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
was here at about quarter to 3, 20 to 3, but Jesus Menendez and Judy Miller and Caroline
Meek didn't arrive until much later, after we had already considered this, and they've been
looking at it, and their request was, "Could we have a deferral? " But it sounds like this is a
take -it -or -leave -it compromise, so it's not really the compromise that's on the table before the
Commission. We would like to have time to consider it. But if we don't consider it, then we
need to address what you've said, and that is, the intensity of this project, the size of this project
is outrageous in a Historic District. It completely ignores the applicable City Code and the
guidelines that are incorporated by the City Code, so that would be our presentation. But
again, we're asking for a deferral to consider a compromise that was proposed to us at about
quarter to 3 this afternoon, so -- and as far as --
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Broeker: -- And I do need to address the meeting, because, Commissioner Russell, you
were copied on all these emails. Mr. Kasdin had not appeared as an attorney. I got an email
from him last week saying, "Hey, Doug, I'm on this. Nice to, "you know, "connect to you again.
I'll call you. " I didn't hear from him. I wasn't sure whether he was actually going to be coming
on or not, but this is our first communication. The deal -- or the meeting that we were going to
have to discuss compromise, all I wanted as an attorney, representing a number ofpeople who
are, you know, not legally sophisticated in litigation, I wanted an understanding that what
everybody said at the meeting would not be used against them, quoted in front of the
Commission, saying, "Well, you said this at our meeting that we had last Monday. " And they
said, "No. " The specific words were, "Whatever is said is on the record. " Well, our people
weren't prepared to speak on that basis, so we let it go. Here we are.
Vice Chair Russell: If I could. I think the reason we're at this juncture here is there is an
impasse. There has been an impasse for awhile, and I could seethe emotions in that room from
both sides. This is several weeks ago now. You know, the owner of the property is at his wit's
end, his family, and I could see the neighbors feel the same way. There was really going to be
no more movement from either side. I could sense that. When I heard that Mr. Kasdin is now
involved with this, this is where I was hoping that a new mediator, even though he's speaking
for one side, would open those lines of communication a little more. In one more week, you
know, if you're saying it's a take -it -or -leave -it option, and you feel they're not going to move
any further, and you all are going to askfor more that they may -- that they're simply not going
to deliver, because in their minds, they've -- and I haven't seen what the changes are yet -- that
they've done enough on their mind; we're at another impasse, and another week's not going to
make a difference; or two weeks or four weeks, it's not going to make a difference. You know,
we here hear this right now for the first time, and we're ready at the end of that to make a
decision to -- and taking into account all the neighbors that are here, especially the core
stakeholders, and how their feelings are about it, and everything that's presented from the other
side, and it seems like that impasse is where we're sort of the tie breaker on that, you know.
And if there is a compromise that can be further met when -- you know, if their side feels that
it's going to be a "no, " unless they compromise further, you know, then maybe there's more
room, but at least, if we hear it -- because it sounds like, you know, you've got a story to tell,
and that'll help us get further, but for lack of bringing this -- us into it, we're not going to get
any further, and we're going to come back in two weeks still at an impasse. That's my worry.
And, you know, I mean, who knows? At the end of this hearing, there may be a deferral at the
end of this, you know. If it looks like, you know, there's somewhat of a meeting of the minds,
and we're going to make some adjustments or not, or whatever -- if there's no adjustments can
be made and you're intractable and they're intractable, we just have to make a decision. But if
there truly is ground for movement, you know, then there's time, you know, to work together
further, but I don't know if we're going to know that until we hear it out. Like, I don't know if
they're willing to move at all. You need them to move further. I don't know if they're willing to
move at all. And if it's a "no, " I think -- you know, unless you need further time simply to look
City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
at their current offer to maybe just accept it as --
Mr. Broeker: That's precisely what we're asking for.
Ms. Miller: That's exactly right.
Mr. Broeker: That's precisely what we're asking for.
Ms. Miller: It's just a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --exactly. That's all -- you know, it looks like he
did a lot, and -- but it --
Vice Chair Russell: Did or did not?
Mr. Broeker: Did.
Ms. Miller: Did.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Ms. Miller: And it's just a question of you think you're going to go to a Commission hearing,
and you're ready for that, and you get an email at I o'clock saying, "You need to be downtown
at 2, because they proposed a compromise, " and you're gathering up your materials for your
presentation, and stuffing them in folders, and you can't get here till 3, whatever, 15; and then,
all of a sudden, it's a, "You look at this, and take it or leave it. "
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Ms. Miller: It's -- that's what's --
Vice Chair Russell: This is encouraging --
Ms. Miller: Because there is (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: -- because the fact that they have proffered changes and that you -- at first
glance, you feel them to be somewhat significant, and who knows where it goes --
Mr. Broeker: Very significant.
Ms. Miller: Very significant changes.
Vice Chair Russell: That's all good news.
Mr. Broeker: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: And your ask doesn't sound unreasonable. Mr. Kasdin, what is the
hardship created with two more weeks, for example? If we didn't wait till the next P&Z
(Planning & Zoning), but we gave them two weeks to --
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair, I think it would be helpful if, actually, we went through with this to see
how simple and straightforward, and anybody sitting there can make an assessment that these
changes are favorable, not complicated. So I think rather than talking about it in the abstract,
we would benefit by seeing it. I do -- with all due respect, I do believe that there is an element
of this that is a delay tactic and our -- and Mr. Esparza is at his wit's end; and his daughter and
son-in-law, who are the architects, have bent over backwards to create something truly
City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
beautiful, and they're sort of at the end of their rope, so -- but we're talking in the abstract, but I
think, if you see it, you'll see it's pretty simple and pretty straightforward about the changes and
the benefits from the changes; not going to take a lot of deliberation.
Ms. Miller: This is not a delaying tactic. Nothing would make all of us happier than to settle
this. This is very unpleasant for all of us. We would love to have this resolved. It's not a
delaying tactic. It's matter of --You know what? I've lived in that house since '92. And Lewis
and Maria and their family have lived in the surrounding houses since they came from Cuba.
These are our nest eggs, and I don't want to take one hour and quickly make a decision. I'd
love to sit down and hear the presentation. Quickly looking at it, it looks like, you know, he's
done some nice things. It's -- but -- you know, that's -- that house is all of our nest eggs. Can
we have an hour? Can we have a week? Can we have -- to sit down and look at it? That just
seems only fair. It's not a delaying tactic.
Vice Chair Russell: If we were to hear it now, though, and still reserve the ability to defer after
that, if there is -- if it's -- if there is incomplete or, you know, hesitancy after that, I would still
reserve that ability to defer it.
Unidentified Speaker: Okay, fine.
Vice Chair Russell: Can we hear it?
Mr. Broeker: That sounds good. So what we're going to do is we're going to go forward on the
proposal as it stands and hear what happened at the HEP Board; and then, at the conclusion,
perhaps we defer it and discuss their compromise, because some of the main issues that we're
going to be presenting to you are size, scale, massing, and those are precisely what are
addressed in the proposed compromise.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman, one of the issues that I have with hearing it and then
possibly deferring it, one, I'm assuming then that we wouldn't close the -- this hearing as a -- as
an appeal hearing, so we would then use that same evidence and put forth no further evidence
when it comes back again to make a decision? Or is this something that we're trying to say --
That's my first question. I'll take it that way. So to be clear, if we take testimony today --
because what I'm -- if we do this today, the appellant is going to put on his testimony, then the
appellee will put on their testimony; there may be some cross-examination; there may not be,
and we will have enough information to make a decision as a board. Any other -- you know, a
compromise or a resolution, or if there's some document that I -- I mean, I haven't seen the
document, but if there's some document that will cause the appellant to resolve their lawsuit, if
you will, that would not be considered at the time that we make our deliberation.
Vice Chair Russell: Meaning, because we go de novo at that -- the new hearing. Is that what
you're implying?
Chair Hardemon: Well, this would be the new hearing. This will be the --
Vice Chair Russell: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: -- de novo hearing. And so what I'm saying is that this information --we will
be operating as if this information is not existing, because we can only go on the information
that's presented before this body. So, you know --look, I understand no one like continuances.
It appears to be goodwill. Typically, you know, when I see two parties that want to come to
some resolution without litigation, which is -- this is litigation, if you will -- I mean, it's actually
an appeal, but you give them an opportunity to settle those issues, and certainly, I don't think
any of the members here will be opposed to a continuance, if that's what you wanted as the Vice
City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chairman, but if we hear the information, I think that the board would probably want to make
its decision today and not continue it or defer it to another day.
Vice Chair Russell: There certainly is a chance we'll make a decision today, and so that's
something to keep in mind, but I'll be very sensitive to the queues that I'm receiving -from your
side, you know, to gauge your interest in acceptance in what they're doing. At the end of the
day, if there's an impasse, there's an impasse. And at the end of the day, we need to still make a
decision. I would love for everyone to always be in consensus and accord, but that's simply not
the case, and that's what our job is; to, you know, break that tie, as I said. So I'd like to hear it.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So we're going to hear PZ. 16 The appellant -- I'd like the attorney of
the record -- of record to step forward to the lectern and be prepared to put on evidence. All
right?
Mr. Broeker: So, as I said, I'm Doug Broeker.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Chair, just a procedural note, as I see people handing things out, please
be sure that you give them to the City Clerk, and that you give them to the other side so they
can look at them and object if they -- if applicable. Thank you.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. So Doug Broeker, 538 Northeast 55th Terrace. I'm here with my wife,
Melanie, our neighbors, the other appellants; Elvis Cruz, our neighbor from around the corner
on 57th Street, is here; has put together a PowerPoint presentation with us, and then Jesus
Menendez has handed some things out. So once again, let me just ask the folks from
Morningside and are here on behalf of our petition to stand. So thank you for this. All right, so
first, the proposed construction is on a small vacant lot in the Historic District of Morningside,
Northeast 55th Terrace, which is the wide street that goes down to the entrance of Morningside
Park. This went before the HEP Board in June, and the HEP Board unanimously approved the
petition. At that time, only one of our neighbors was able to attend the hearing. Most of us
didn't get notice until shortly beforehand, when we heard about it from other people in the
neighborhood. There was no formal notice that was posted on the lot across the street, as has
happened so many times through the years. I've lived directly across the street with Melanie for
31 years. And so we did put together a letter, petition signed by a number of us. The Civic
Association put together a letter. The Architectural Review Committee of the Civic Association
put together a letter, and those letters are in your packets that we handed out to you. So the
problem that we have is that -- or the main problem that we have is that the Miami City Code,
Section 23-6.2 was ignored. The HEP Board ignored the applicable law. It wasn't mentioned
in the entire proceeding, in the presentation, or in the staff comments. The size, scale, massing,
and design are inappropriate for this location in a Historic District. There's a map that Mr.
Cruz has that shows the subject property in red, and then the property of the appellants in
green. So the design violates Miami City Code 23-6.2(h)(1), which is the law governing new
construction in a Historic District. And as I said, that wasn't even mentioned before the HEP
Board. The design is inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for New Construction
in a Historic District, and that also violates Miami 21. And then the HEP staff misled the HEP
Board and gave erroneous and misleading information for their consideration. At the hearing,
the board members were clearly troubled by this proposed design. At least three board
members expressed that they were clearly troubled by this proposed design, and with the size,
scale, massing, and that the architectural features were a -- as one board member put it -- "a
hodgepodge"; but the staff, in response to specific questions, essentially gave them inaccurate
or incomplete information, and they were misled. So first, there's a green sheet that was handed
out to you that has the governing law, Section 23. And in there it says, "New construction shall
not adversely affect the congruity between it and the neighboring structures and surroundings,
including form, height, rhythm, and pattern of window and door openings, nor shall the
proposed work adversely affect the special character or historic architectural or aesthetic
City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
interest, or value of the Historic District. New construction shall be guided by the U.S.
Secretary oflnterior Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings." Those standards are on the back of that green sheet that was in the packet you were
handed. And let me quote a part of it. "New construction in Historic Districts should
complement with the use of architectural features that are common in the surroundings, and fit
in with the overall sense ofscale of the district, and complement its surroundings with
appropriate massing. " So let me give you some specific examples of why this didn't happen
with this application. Number one, regarding the scale and massing, the staff report states that
the project has appropriate scale and massing, but they have no objective criteria in order to
support that. We can mathematically prove that finding is false, okay. We researched all the
houses on Northeast 55th Terrace, and we found that the scale and massing of the proposed
design is inconsistent with the other homes. The average intensity of the homes along
Northeast 55th Terrace is approximately 32 percent that we objectively determined. We did a
ratio of the floor area to the lot area.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) both stories.
Mr. Broeker: Right, both stories; floor area to lot area for intensity, okay? The proposed
project is 4,279 square feet of floor area on a 6,600 -square -foot lot, so that equates to a 65
percent ratio of actual square footage to lot area.
Chair Hardemon: May I interrupt for one second? This property is --as proposed is a
two-story property.
Mr. Broeker: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: Although, properties that are near it, that are in green, are any of those
two-story properties?
Mr. Broeker: Several of them are two stories; some of them are one-story.
Chair Hardemon: Of the two-story properties, does this percentage -- is the percent -- does the
percentage of square foot that I see here in the green, is it also added similarly as the 65
percent that you have here?
Mr. Broeker: No, no. The percentage of the houses that are two-story on the 500 block of 55th
Terrace, all of them are in the 30s, in the high 30s.
Commissioner Suarez: I think what he's trying to ask is --
Mr. Broeker: Okay?
Vice Chair Russell: Because it's a larger lot.
Mr. Broeker: Right. Well, some of them are larger lots. Some of them are lots that are the
same size; they're just smaller houses.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Broeker: Keep in mind, the houses on either side of this are 1,500 square feet.
Commissioner Suarez: He's try -- I think the question he's asking is if it's an apples -to -apples
comparison?
City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: In other words, you're talking about total square footage of the house,
regardless of the number of stories versus the lot?
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Mr. Broeker: Right. And so even the ones that are two stories are falling in line -- they all
average about 32 percent. They're all in the 30s, and this one's in the 60s. So they -- basically,
they're jammed in a much bigger house.
Chair Hardemon: The two that are NA (not applicable), how are they not applicable, the two
that are not applicable?
Commissioner Suarez: Are they empty lots?
Chair Hardemon: I'm looking at the presentation.
Commissioner Suarez: Are they empty lots?
Chair Hardemon: Above --
Mr. Cruz: There was no information available on the County website for those, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Russell: But green means they're an appellant, right?
Mr. Cruz: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: So --
Chair Hardemon: You got testimony from the owners of those properties to say what the square
footage is? Can't you provide testimony --for instance, the house that's -- it looks -- appears to
be south of 55th Terrace, on the south side of 55th Terrace, that is to the right that has a --
Vice Chair Russell: NA.
Chair Hardemon: -- large square footage and lot that's NA, is there someone here that owns
this property?
Mr. Cruz: They're not present at the moment.
Mr. Broeker: Right. The Colberts weren't able to be here, but do we have some data on that,
the Colberts' house?
Vice Chair Russell: What's their address?
Mr. Broeker: You're talking about -- it's 560. Is that the one we're talking about, the one that's
directly east of our house, which is directly across the street?
Mr. Cruz: We have a 27 percent for them, but it's using a different square footage. I have to
explain very briefly. There's three different types of square footage that are mentioned on the
County website. So in order to compare apples to apples, we used what the County calls the
City of Miami Page 134 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
"actual square footage. " And on some properties, the County does not list an actual square
footage.
Chair Hardemon: The adjusted square footage, though, that includes the parts of the square
footage that is not livable; is that correct?
Mr. Cruz: I'm not sure how the County comes up with that formula. That's a bit of a mystery to
us, as to how they come up with it, their adjusted square footage.
Chair Hardemon: I'm asking this because when I look at some of the properties that you have
--for instance, 531 Northeast 55th Terrace -- I see an actual square footage of 2,388 square
feet, a living square footage of 1,896, and then an adjusted of 1,969. And so what I'm seeing is,
typically, from your list, the adjusted square footage is lower than the actual square footage,
and particularly on the property that we were discussing that's NA, the lot size is 12,925 square
feet. You don't have an actual square footage, you don't have a living square footage, but you
have an adjusted square footage of 3,545, which is -- seems to be the largest property in this
entire list. And in fact, the two properties that are listed "NA" that are on -- well, not from the
top, but the bottom two, so this is on 511 Northeast 55th Terrace, that address, the square
footage is 2,316 -- I'm sorry; wrong one. The 500 Northeast 55th Terrace, I'm looking at a lot
size of]], 000 square feet, and an adjusted square footage of 3,521 square feet. And then on
560 Northeast 55th Terrace, a lot size of just under 13, 000 square feet, adjusted square footage
of 3,545 square feet. What is the lot size on --the lot in question is 10,000 square feet?
Mr. Broeker: 6,600. It was misstated on the staff report as 9,000, but was clarified orally as
6,600.
Chair Hardemon: And what's square footage of the -- the adjusted square footage?
Mr. Broeker: 4,200 and --
Mr. Cruz: 79.
Mr. Broeker: Yeah, 4,279.
Chair Hardemon: That's the -- so would that be --
Mr. Broeker: So way more --
Chair Hardemon: -- the adjusted square footage, counselor, the adjusted square footage?
Mr. Cruz: No, actual.
Chair Hardemon: What is the --
Mr. Broeker: That's the actual.
Chair Hardemon: --adjusted square footage?
Mr. Cruz: It has not been figured out. Again, adjusted square footage is some sort of formulaic
invention of the property appraiser.
Chair Hardemon: I'll tell you that I've seen -- I don't -- I'm sure there's an answer to this
question, that someone's going to give us the answer to it, but when I've looked at the property
-- our property -- Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser sites, I've seen that you have garages
City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
that count towards the overall square footage, but it is adjusted down because you can't live in
the garage, so it's not a part of your adjusted square footage. I've seen improved lots, so you
can have a carport, and you built out and you put concrete down there, so it's a part of the
square footage that you've added, but you adjust it because you can't -- the property appraiser
won't charge you the same rate per square foot of an adjusted value or a part that's not livable
versus a part that is. So I know that there's some -- as I understand, some -- that's the quirk and
it's in it, so when you say -- that's why I wanted to be sure that we're comparing apples to
apples.
Vice Chair Russell: Apples to apples. Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: The relevant one would be the actual, though, correct? Because if we're
talking about massing and scale, we don't care about what's livable inside or not. A garage
adds to the bulk of the entire house, the mass of the house, and that's what the neighbors are
concerned about, right?
Chair Hardemon: Well, I'm not sure. I'm not sure, because in this -- if you had -- and I'm not
familiar with the properties themselves, but if you had one property that had a open garage, for
instance, like a lot of properties have in the City of Miami, and that had a ground that was
improved upon, I'm sure that would count in some sort of square footage, compared to if you
had -- you did not have that improved ground, and you put those blocks -- you know, those
blocks that people use to park on. I'm not sure if that counts towards the -- his square footage,
because those are blocks that you would just put on the grass, and you can equally parkas
many cars there as you would on an improved surface where you would have some individual
bricks laid that would make a driveway.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Broeker: Yeah. Here it's not blocks on the grass; it's a single -car garage, so, you know,
couple hundred square feet. I don't know. But as Vice Chairman Russell pointed out, our
problem with the design of this house is how massive it is, the scale, the size, and so the
enclosed garage adds to that massing and scale and size, whether it's adjusted square footage
or not, but, you know, our point --
Chair Hardemon: Before you move forward -- and I'll let you continue -- the square footage
that's being proposed, it is respectful of all setbacks and necessary restrictions from Miami 21;
is it?
Mr. Garcia: It is, sir. The structure as proposed -- this is prior to the modifications that we
presented to you --fully complies with all applicable regulations of the Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Hardemon: Counselor, you're free to move on.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. So just to kind of look at this, what we tried to do was mathematically
show how this proposed house is completely out of scale with the neighborhood. And just -- you
know, you can look at this list ofsquare footage of house versus square footage of the lot, and
you can pretty easily see that all the other ones that are under 50 percent -- most well under 50
percent, really down around a third, and this one is 65 percent, it's two/thirds, so it's much
bigger for the size of the lot. And part of the problem is this is a small lot, so they're putting a
huge box house on a small lot, and it should never have been approved as something that was
consistent with the Historic District. The Morningside Historic District has been in place since
1984, and so we have a lot of experience with proposals, and this one just doesn't fit So back
City of Miami Page 136 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
to -- you know, it's an effort to just show with objective mathematical proof that -- at 65 percent,
the scale and massing of this proposed design is incongruous and inconsistent with Section
23-6.2 of the City Code and the Secretary of Interior Standards. And what's important is that
these are the standards and Code that predominate here. It's not a Miami 21 issue; it's a
Historic District issue. So also, the massing is incongruous with the surroundings and above
the mass of the two surrounding houses.
Vice Chair Russell: This is the original design, obviously?
Mr. Broeker: Right, right.
Vice Chair Russell: Pre (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Broeker: We're talking about the original design. And like I said, you know, the proposal
address -- I mean, it addresses a lot of this, but we're talking about the original design. And
really, to me, the benefit of you all spending the time listening to us this afternoon is to
understand what got approved here and understand why it's totally inappropriate in a Historic
District. And so, you know, we're, in part, having a discussion about what's appropriate in a
Historic District when you have new construction, and it's the fact that we're in a Historic
District that distinguishes this and makes it a tougher standard. So number two of our
examples, inconsistency with the law is confirmed by the -- a previous staff report. In 2002, a
3,500 square foot house, so more than a thousand square feet less -- a two-story house was
proposed for the same lot. The second page of your handout is the March 19, 2002 HEP Board
fact sheet, which states, quote, "The proposed design for the house is found to be inconsistent
in terms of size and scale with the character of neighboring homes on the same street and the
same lot size. The character of the street consists of post -1941 buildings that are small,
single-family residences with respect to the architectural character of the district. " So today's
proposed house is -- I'm sorry; 779 square feet larger, not a thousand -- 779 square feet larger
than the same -- the one that the City previously rejected for being too big; yet, staff did not
even disclose this fact to the HEP Board. Instead, they made a general statement that prior
applications had been approved. And they didn't say, 'prior application had also been
disapproved. " The third page of your handout is the staff report for this application, which
states, the house will be 28 feet, 6 inches to the top of the parapet. Now, the plans show that
the house is actually 31 feet, 6 inches above the grade, and the base of the home is another foot
above the sidewalk. So, you know, here you have a sidewalk, you have a hill, and then you
have the grade, the -- you know, the bottom of the house. And if you look closely at their plans,
there's a negative three feet before they start counting up and going up to the parapet. So
you're really 31 and a halffeet, 32 and a halffeet. You're almost to the size ofa building on
Biscayne Boulevard, a 35 foot building on Biscayne Boulevard next to two very small one-story
single-family houses. So the staff report incorrectly states on its face that the property's 9, 000
square feet. It also states that the house is constructed in 1954 on the west side. The house on
the east side is constructed in 1936 In fact, the property's only 6,600 square feet. It's the
house on the west that's from 1936, and the house on the east that's from 1954. So staff got that
wrong, and the HEP Board was given incorrect information on another point. Now, I should
say, the 6,600 was clarified orally, but what was on their document that was sitting in front of
them was wrong. The report was wrong. So notice that the houses' walls rise vertically to a
flat-topped, unadorned parapet, with no eaves or visible roof line. This is a violation of the
Secretary oflnterior Standards, which state that new construction should, quote, "use
architectural features that are common to the surroundings. " Of the 223 houses in the Historic
District, there's only one that has a flat top, unadorned, vertical parapet wall. So next picture.
Here's the Peters' house at 492 Northeast 57th Street, two and a half blocks away. It's one
house out of 223, and it's not common; and yet, the applicant used that one house in its
submission to the HEP Board as an example of commonality. The staff report did not challenge
that lack of commonality. That was also misleading. The Morningside Historic District has a
City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
wide variety of architecture, and a finding of only one example of an architectural feature does
not justify the appropriateness of new construction. This is a thinly veiled attempt to justify a
big box in a Historic District. So -- now, here's the house to the west of the property, Ms.
Miller's house. We have photographs on hand of all 36 houses on 55th Terrace, but for brevity,
we'll only show you a few. Of all 36 houses on that street have pitched roofs; almost all of them
tiled. None of them has flat -top parapet walls. Next is the house to the east. Again, the
keyword from the Secretary of Interior Standards is "common." That lack of fundamental
common architectural feature also violates 23-6.2 of the City Code, because it adversely affects
the historical, architectural, and aesthetic relationship and congruity with the surroundings in
the Historic District.
Vice Chair Russell: That's 555?
Mr. Broeker: Right, that's 555.
Vice Chair Russell: Is it a contributing structure to the --?
Mr. Broeker: No, that's not a contributing structure, but it has elements. And, you know,
again, to put it in a big box next to it is totally out of character with the district. House like
this is within character of the district. Even though it was built before the district was formed,
it at least has some commonality. So the next picture is -- this is a picture on 50th Terrace
outside the Historic District. It's a new two-story house. This is a more accurate depiction of
how a two-story, flat -top parapet wall is incongruous with the surrounding single -story sloping
tile roofs, and how a house like this towers over and dwarfs the existing homes. This is not
allowable in the Historic District.
Vice Chair Russell: This is four streets south of the Historic District?
Mr. Broeker: Correct. So, right.
Vice Chair Russell: So this happened -- which -- and this is your worst nightmare, basically.
Mr. Broeker: Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Mr. Broeker: Exactly; just shows how it simply towers over. Okay, next, the plans violate
Miami 21, Section 5.3.26Q, "Mechanical equipment on a roof shall be enclosed by parapets of a
minimum height necessary to conceal it and a maximum height of 3.5 feet. " The plans show
two illegal parapet walls on the second floor -- on the second story: a four foot wall in yellow,
and a 6.6 feet wall in red. Those supersized parapet walls above the 3.5 feet not only violate
Miami 21; they also increase the scale and massing of the building, and contribute to the
violation of City Code 23-6.2. Okay, next, regarding windows. All of the other houses on 55th
Terrace and all but one in the Historic District were designed with clearly visible, unobstructed
window fagade. The proposed house has none, because the first floor window and the second
floor window are completely obstructed by a screened wall of clay barrel tiles. This also
violates 23-6.2 because it adversely affects the rhythm and pattern of window and door
openings in building fagades. The staff report ignores the obstructed windows, misleading the
HEP Board again by admission -- omission of these standards and these violations. Okay, next,
here are four examples of other new construction, which have been approved --
Mr. Garcia: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, may I please? May I, please? Only because
I've heard a number of times "staff has misled, " and I'm going to very simply and very
respectfully take issue with that language, and instead, I would ask you to re -characterize that
City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
as "there may be errors in staffs report. " Would you kindly?
Chair Hardemon: I'll sustain that objection.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. Very good. We area little passionate; I'm sorry. So we've got four
examples of other new constructions that have been improved and built in our neighborhood in
the Historic District. Notice, all of these houses have pitched roofs; none of them have flat -top
parapet walls of the proposed design. They all have visible, unobstructed windows. This house
violates the design review criteria of Miami 21. Notice the first red underline. The roof,
windows, scale, and massing do not respond to the existing urban form. More specifically, note
the second red underline, which requires architectural styles and details, such as rooflines and
fenestration, or windows, derivative from the surrounding area. The roofline that fronts the
faVade windows of this design are completely inconsistent with all of 55th Terrace, okay. And
the last example: During the HEP meeting, members -- Member Hue Ryan questioned the
design, saying it looked like a modern box, and that we are here to keep it historic, and keep it
as it is. Staff responded with: "It is in " -- "It is compatible with the neighborhood, compatible
with the sign " -- "size, massing, scaling. " Staff did not mention Section 23-6.2, nor did they
give my Ryan or the board any criteria or basis for their opinion on compatibility. Also,
Morningside's Architectural Review Committee reviewed the design and wrote a letter in
opposition. They've updated that letter for you. Morningside Civic Association Board also
submitted a letter against it. "We, the neighbors, are not opposed to a house being built on that
property, as long as it's consistent and congruous with the Historic District and surrounding
houses. " As proof of that, here's a picture of an earlier design, which was submitted and
approved of by the neighbors, but it was never built because the owners went through a divorce.
We take new construction in the Historic District seriously. You saw this house earlier. This is
-- one of the new houses that is consistent with the historic preservation laws. During the
planning phase, the owner told the neighbors that he's building his home. He planned to live in
the house. But notice the sign outlined in red. Here's a close-up of the sign. This house is for
sale, even before construction is finished. Commissioners, the appellants have lived in
Morningside for decades, and we love it there. We love it here in Miami. We know that
whatever gets built is forever going to be with us, whether the builder, the original owner, is or
not. So in conclusion, this is an attempt to build an oversized, massive, modern, boxy -looking
house, as is happening throughout the City -- Coconut Grove -- with a few modern design
changes for a Historic District, but it's totally out of scale. It's way too big, doesn't fit in,
violates all the applicable guidelines, so we ask you to support our appeal, and prevent this
illegal design from being built in the Morningside Historic District. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Chair, if I may, just on a legal point I want to make. The allegations
were made that there were violations of Miami 21 and so forth. I just want you to know that all
certificates of appropriateness that are issued by HEP, as this one provides, are subject to
approval by Zoning, Building, and all other City departments, so those regulatory requirements
are evaluated prior to issuance of any permits.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I'll allow the appellee an opportunity to respond,
unless you have any questions for the counsel or --? I mean, he didn't really put on any witness
that you could cross-examine, but I'm sure you may have some response.
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair, I believe the order that you announced before is that the City would be
allowed to respond first, then we'll follow them --
Chair Hardemon: That's fine.
Mr. Kasdin: -- ifthat's okay.
City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt, you're recognized.
Mr. Broeker: I would say, we do have some other witnesses who want to testify, if you want to
hear them first, or whether you want to hear from --
Chair Hardemon: What do you propose that they're going to testify to?
Mr. Broeker: Well, let's see. We have an architect, Robert John Graboski, who's on the ARC
(Architectural Review Committee) -- the Morningside Civic Association Architectural Review
Committee, to testify. We also had some neighbors who weren't part of our appeal that wanted
to testify, some neighbors who, you know, regularly walk by this property and have seen
construction in other areas and want to be heard.
Chair Hardemon: Right. So I don't think there's any question as to the fact about what is being
-- but there's nothing there now, really and truly, so the testimony -- if you want to proffer
testimony from some person who's determined to be a expert in these types of homes that are
being built and whether or not they're congruent with the neighborhood, I'm sure you could put
that testimony on, but I don't think that any other testimony is necessary from laymen about
what is historic and what is not, because this comes down to a very technical opinion, and so if
you have someone that can offer assistance with you with that, that's fine.
Mr. Broeker: Yeah. I think what I'd prefer to do, if you don't mind, would be to allow staff to
present, and then what -- they may be able to say what they want to say by way of rebuttal, and
they may actually want to hear what's said by the others before they speak. I just felt thatl
should let you know exactly what our case is, as a matter of the law and the facts and how the
appellants feel about this. But there are other -- you know, there are other parties that --
people in the neighborhood, Civic Association, and whatnot.
Chair Hardemon: And I'm saying that, because remember, the parties you represent --
Mr. Broeker: Correct. And the others, I don't represent.
Chair Hardemon: Correct.
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Chair Hardemon: So witnesses that you will put on, I'm expecting the witnesses will offer some
fact -- well, not necessarily fact, because -- what I don't want is this to come down to a matter
of a public hearing, because that's not where we are right now.
Mr. Broeker: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: We're at the point where you're trying to put on evidence to show that your
appeal should be granted, and there's very specific information that we're looking for to make
our decision from there. Okay?
Mr. Broeker: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: So Ms. Schmitt.
Ms. Schmitt: Thank you, Megan Schmitt, Preservation officer with the City of Miami's
Planning & Zoning Department. I'll be brief. We standby our recommendation for this project
to be approved. We politely and respectfully disagree with the analysis that was justputforth.
City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
We look at the district as a whole when we look at new construction. We don't-- we take into
consideration, certainly, the block, but we also take into consideration the context of the
Historic District. I believe that the applicant or -- excuse me -- the architect did an excellent
job in explaining their design and their references that we see in the current proposal. I also
agree that a two-story building and the massing is not inappropriate for the district as a whole,
and so that's why we supported the application as it was. There were a couple of changes that
the HEP did put onto the conditional approval, and I think it's worth mentioning them. So the
-- one of the requests was that an incorporation of an eyebrow into the southern faVade and
having it wrap around to sort of articulate more of an art deco feature, which was a direct
comment from one of our board members. In addition, there was certainly some concern from
the neighbors in terms of the lack of fenestration. So fenestration is told to be introduced to the
east and west elevation. And then one of the criticisms of the community was a lack of muttons
on the window, which is what divides a window into different panes, and so that was also part of
the approval; as well as the Assistant City Attorney mentioned that the certificate of
appropriateness is only approved on the condition that it was approved by any other disciplines
that needed to see it, because it's new construction. I want to speak to the Secretary of the
Interior Standards.
Vice Chair Russell: I have a quick question about what she just said.
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Vice Chair Russell: Those conditions meant that the approval was granted, but only if they did
those things?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct. And the applicant --
Vice Chair Russell: The eyebrow --
Ms. Schmitt: -- agreed.
Vice Chair Russell: Oh, okay.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct. So I think that it's really important to talk about the Secretary of the
Interior Standards and also the Venice Charter, which is what we look to when we're making our
recommendations. And I think that it's actually important to note that they're quite brief when
it comes to new construction, which leads to situations like this. My expert opinion will always
be to differentiate and to make sure it's compatible, and it's very clear that we have neighbors
that don't agree with my expert opinion. I felt that the --like I said --designer made an
excellent point in terms of delivering his design perspective. He took in -- or "they, " I should
say, took in elements throughout the entire Historic District, and that is, to me, a successful
application. So in addition, the Venice Charter, which is sort of what led into the Secretary of
the Interior Standards in the sense of these guidelines that we all look to, is actually referring
to monuments as well, and so it's a very brief reference, and it says, "New construction
projects" -- oh. Well, this is -- so -- excuse me -- both 1964 Venice Charter and the Secretary of
Interior Standards for Historic Preservation that were first issued in 1977 state that: `New
construction in Historic Districts should be differentiated from the original fabric. " We feel
like that happened herein a successful manner. We also think that it does complement because,
like I said, there are architectural design nods to the styles that you see throughout. And then I
guess I just want to close. And if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer, but it's -- this is a
tough topic for historic preservation professionals and then the people who live in the
neighborhood, because our interpretation of the standards, I think is -- it's much less literal
than, I think, the neighbors, and that sometimes what causes some of our conflicts, in terms of
what we support and what we approve and what they expect us to or would like us to.
City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Well, I guess I'm the Chair now. Ido have a couple questions. Massing
and scale was the -- when I left the presentation that I saw from the homeowner and the
neighbors, massing and scale was my biggest concern. I did appreciate some of the
architectural elements and learning of the various things. I see a good faith effort there, but
the massing and scale is the one that's going to affect the neighbors the absolute most, and so
when they showed this rendering that evening -- and this is, by the way, the original design, not
the newer design -- this one particular rendering showed the house from the street, you know,
coming down the street and with the two on the other side, one-story bungalows on the other
side, and it does -- it really does stick out like a sore thumb in that sense, because it is a
two-story large mass building in between two bungalows, but I assumed that the massing and
scale is relative to the whole district, or do you look more toward what's around them on that
street?
Ms. Schmitt: I would say it's a combination of both, but absolutely, it's more to the district.
And so --for example, I wouldn't ever want to be in a situation where I'm instructing a designer
that the only -- or an architect that the only thing that they can put between these two houses is
another one-story house, because I don't think that that's appropriate.
Vice Chair Russell: That's -- and that's tough for their property rights, of course. Across the
street there are two-story homes --
Ms. Schmitt: Direct.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and some of them are quite big. And there are homes in the district that
do have a modern fla -- even though they were from the '50s, they have sort of "The Jetsons"
idea, and there are some square -looking houses. This obviously is a modern house. It does do
a nod. My question was about massing and scale, and so I asked Francisco Garcia this week if
he could do a little bit of an analysis for me, because for me, it wasn't so much about the actual
square footage of the house, but what it was relative to the lot and how that compared to the
rest, and I believe that's what you referred to in your green and red chart. So Francisco, if you
could guide me a little bit here. How did they do in terms of that -- in that term of massing and
scale?
Mr. Garcia: I'm happy to, sir. And I'll say briefly that I certainly appreciate the approach
taken by the appellant in trying to objectify what is most often a very subjective issue. So when
we're dealing with aesthetic matters, especially in the context of a Historic District, one is often
well advised not to rely too heavily on the numbers. Here's why: The numbers that were
provided -- and I'm not going to challenge them; I am in no position to -- make reference to
what is typically known in Euclidean Zoning Ordinance as `: floor/area ratio. " It's a widely
held practice. Fortunately I believe for us in the City of Miami, it does not apply in the
lower -end transect zones, so it is only when you begin to get to six -story buildings and taller --
typically, eight -story buildings and taller that we begin to calculate the floor area to lot area
ratio, because it becomes an appropriate prescriptive form of regulation. However, for smaller
structures, we are essentially a form base Code in the City of Miami, and what we do do is we
provide a floor plate that provides for breathing room for the site; so setbacks, both side and
front and rear, and those certainly have been met. And what we do then is we provide some
parameters within which that massing can evolve. Step one. So I would challenge, again for
the record, the use of a floor -lot -ratio or floor -area -ratio type analysis for purposes of this
discussion. Then in terms of compatibility and contextuality, which there certainly is reference
to, and appropriately so in the designation of a Historic District, what I would say is the
following: It is less relevant, much less relevant -- in fact, almost not relevant at all how much
the square footage is. What is most relevant is how that square footage is distributed, right?
And so the importance of the design has to do with how that structure -- in this case, a
City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
single-family residence -- once it's built, addresses the streets, addresses the area as a whole,
and addresses the abutting properties. In this particular area, as you've described, this
structure would be flanked by two single-family residences, but it would be fronting mostly
one-story -- one single-family residences, but it would be fronting two-story single-family
residences. The volume, the presence of this structure, the design on the street is completely
acceptable vis-a-vis the character of those across the street and in the general area. And there
is nothing precluding the two properties at either site from developing into a two-story or
having additions that go to the second story any time in the near future; completely acceptable.
The last thing I'll say -- and I think this goes to the issue of contextuality -- is this: In terms of
how this particular structure abuts the ones next to it and fits in within the scale of the
neighborhood as a whole, in terms of the neighborhood, plenty of examples that adopt the same
strategy of being robust and upfront to the street to have an important presence in what is
intended to be an elegant up -scale neighborhood. That's the intent, and they're complying with
it. Now, could it be more respectful in terms of how it abuts the neighboring properties? I think
there's an opportunity to be explored there, and quite frankly -- and I know I'm probably
stealing someone else's thunder -- but I think that the revisions that they are proposing go a
long way towards addressing that particular issue. I think that is one where, agreeably, there is
probably some room for improvement.
Mr. Broeker: Certainly.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And that's what scared me originally when I saw the plans.
The front, I thought they did a great job of disguising the size and the second floor. There was
different elevations and setbacks and shuffling. But then when I did seethe side, I said, "Wow,
That is a big building right up against both of the lots on either side, " and I'm sure there's a
quality of life issue. And I guess as Francisco said, you could one up the Jones, and you guys
could each all start going up (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But that's why I'm very glad to see that
changes had been made. The question is, how much has been made, and have they come far
enough and -- you know, to where I would be comfortable feeling that this is an acceptable
neighbor within the Historic District on a new structure? So those were my questions. Thank
you.
Mr. Broeker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ask that question (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Vice Chair Russell: Of Francisco or -- yes, of course. Oh, of Megan.
Mr. Broeker: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, of course.
Commissioner Carollo: On the record.
Mr. Broeker: Yes, Megan, couple of points. One, is it true that there's only one house in the
Morningside Historic District that has a fat -topped unadorned parapet?
Ms. Schmitt: I don't believe so. Just a moment. I know that according to the architect's
analysis that he did that he identified 15 fat roofs. And just so everyone knows, for the record,
my office doesn't have the data of number of flat roofs, number of gabled roofs. It's not data
that we have -- that we keep.
Mr. Broeker: Right. No. And my point is an unadorned parapet with no -- it's one thing to
have a flat roof with tile, but how many have just an unadorned parapet, no tile? It's just the
one, right?
City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Schmitt: Well, I --you asked --I'm sorry. Did you ask me the question of an unadorned--?
Mr. Broeker: Yeah, a flat -toped, unadorned parapet.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Clarify the question, please.
Mr. Broeker: Yes. Sure.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: All right.
Mr. Broeker: Would you agree that there's only one house in the Historic District that has a
flat-topped, unadorned parapet?
Ms. Schmitt: I'm not ready to say `yes" to that, so I can't confirm that.
Mr. Broeker: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: So the other 15 flat roofs that they purport exist, you're --what's the
difference?
Mr. Broeker: They have file roofs. They're tile.
Vice Chair Russell: They're flat, but they have tiles?
Mr. Broeker: Right. It's not an unadorned -- it's -- a parapet is a wall that sticks up, and
there's nothing on it.
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Mr. Broeker: So -- and that's what we have here.
Vice Chair Russell: So of the 15 flat roofs that they said they've noticed, they have some sort of
adornment.
Mr. Broeker: Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: This one does not.
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: The one that was shown in your presentation that they were using as an
example is, and it's not new construction; it's an old historic building --
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- but it's -- you're just saying it's not representative of the whole district.
Mr. Broeker: Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: It was one example.
Mr. Broeker: And my point is, would you say that I out of 223 is not common to the
neighborhood?
City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Ms. Schmitt: I think that it's fair to say "not common. " I think it's also fair to say that it's a
beautiful structure that you all value for its architectural design as it is, so I'm not sure why it's
a huge issue to take from that --
Mr. Broeker: Are you talking about the Peters' house? Okay. Now, the Peters' house doesn't
have the second floor massed close to the sidewalk, does it?
Ms. Schmitt: Sir, I'm feeling a little bit under attack.
Mr. Broeker: Okay.
Ms. Schmitt: Let's -- can we speak a little more directly?
Mr. Broeker: Sure.
Ms. Schmitt: Okay.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Make direct questions to the witness, please.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. All right, so what I'm trying to do is go through with questions of you how
the Peters' house is different. The Peters' house, the second floor is only on about half of the
house as you look at it from the street, correct?
Mr. Kasdin: If I may object? Mr. Chair, if I may object. Witness has already testified that the
criteria and the guideline is not -- is districtwide, and it talks about elements that are present at
places in the district. To ask with respect to any one specific house in the district, use that as a
criteria for judging whether or not this house complies is not within the criteria, not
appropriate to base any decision on, and I think I would object to it.
Vice Chair Russell: Sustained. You certainly made your point. We saw the picture -- is it
Peters --
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- the Peters' house?
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: And it is cubed on top. It is flat on top. It's unadorned. It is a little bit set
back.
Mr. Broeker: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: So it's not a full block.
Mr. Broeker: Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: Like --nightmare.
Mr. Broeker: It's not a box.
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Mr. Broeker: Right. Okay. The other thing where you were saying that sometimes people
City of Miami Page 145 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
disagree with you, you have an opinion about the Secretary of State -- of -Interior Standards,
and you say that they're quite brief about new construction, okay. So are you familiar with the
language in 23-6.2 of the City Code that says, "New construction shall be guided by the U. S.
Secretary oflnterior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings "?
Ms. Schmitt: Yes, I am.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. So you'd agree that those standards are incorporated into the City Code?
Ms. Schmitt: Yes, I agree.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. And so you agree that in those standards, it says that: "Designing and
constructing new additions to historic buildings when required by the new use, new work shall
be compatible with the historic character of the setting in terms of size, scale, design, material,
color, and texture "?
Ms. Schmitt: I totally am familiar with that, yes.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. So you agree that those standards are incorporated into the Miami City
Code?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Commissioner, the City -- if we're just going to be asked what's in the Code,
the City will stipulate to the contents of Chapter 23 as to the section on "Certificates for [sic]
Appropriateness. "
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: And that's, you know, a matter ofpublic record, and it's codified in the City
Code, and it refers to the Secretary of Interior Guidelines, `guidelines, " and you know -- so
just to try to move things along.
Mr. Broeker: Right. Sure. My point is simply that the statement was made that there are quite
brief standards about new construction. My point is that the City Code says that new
construction is supposed to follow these rules for rehabilitation.
Ms. Schmitt: And I'd just like to make [sic] for the record that I actually think that this
particular design complies with both the City and the Secretary of Interior State -- Standards.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: And I just want to point out that we don't have a quorum, and so I think we
need to stop. I know that the --you wanted to ask questions and you've --
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- Well, we need to stop, and then the appellee needs to commence -- we
need to stop. We need to cease until you have a quorum again.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Chair Gort: We need a Commissioner.
City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Commissioner Garcia? We do have a quorum. So I believe that the
appellants rest?
Mr. Broeker: Actually, one of my neighbors, Al Sasiadek wanted to speak to the setback issue,
because that wasn't adequately addressed in my presentation. I didn't really know how to
explain it, so --
Vice Chair Russell: So Francisco Garcia said that the setbacks are all within -- I mean, having
nothing to do with historical preservation, but simply within Miami 21.
Mr. Garcia: That is correct.
Mr. Broeker: Right. See -- and here's the point: They can be within Miami 21, but if they're
out of character with the Historic District, then they violate the Secretary of Interior
Guidelines, and they violate the City Code, and that's really the nub of where we are. It's the
City Code, and it's incorporation of the Secretary of Interior Guidelines about scale and
massing and size. And you spoke to how so much of the house is massed at the front, and you
pointed out that illustration. And one thing I'd like to say about that illustration is it's drawn
from a perspective point of view, where what's behind -- what's further back looks a lot smaller
than it actually is, and so I'd like to just hearken back to that picture of the house on 50th
Terrace.
Vice Chair Russell: I didn't say --
Mr. Broeker: That's what it's really going to look like.
Vice Chair Russell: -- "it's massed at the front. " I said, they've massed --
Mr. Broeker: Right, exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: -- they did a good job of massing.
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: But the setbacks for both neighbors on either sides are five feet. And then
they have five feet on one side and seven feet on another side, right?
Mr. Broeker: Well, what they're doing is they're massing much of the house closer to the front
line, whereas the others have a little bit forward and a lot more back.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. And you're again obviously working with what you know, the
original design?
Mr. Broeker: Right. Excuse me?
Vice Chair Russell: You're discussing the original design? Because we obviously --
Mr. Broeker: Right. Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: -- haven't seen the new design.
Mr. Broeker: Right, right. And like I said --
City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Mr. Broeker: -- the new proposal addresses all those issues.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Broeker: All right.
Vice Chair Russell: I mean, do we need to hear from --? Are they going to say exactly what
youjustsaid?
Mr. Broeker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) since we have an expert architect here, I think he can
probably address these issues far more --
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: That will be up to the Commission, because again, I know this is not a court,
but it wasn't presented at the time of the presentation, but -- so -- and then we heard from
Megan, and I thought -- it's up to the Commission.
Vice Chair Russell: He's an expert.
Chair Hardemon: Well -- so you've given your case in chief,- Megan has gone, and the appellee
has not?
Mr. Broeker: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Not yet.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So I'll allow you to use him for rebuttal.
Mr. Kasdin: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Is that fine?
Mr. Kasdin: Fine.
Chair Hardemon: Sir.
Mr. Kasdin: Again, Neisen Kasdin, ofAkerman, for the appellees. I'd like to first submit for
the record our PowerPoint presentation; and in deference to the hour, I'm going to try to not
touch on everything in that. In our presentation, after I briefly address the law as well as our
outreach and the involvement to the community, we'll address German Brun, the architect, and
then finish as well with Mr. Jose Esparza, the property owner for a briefstatement. The first
thing I would like to deal with before my prepared remarks is the mischaracterization of the
Code and the standards, and also some of the information that was provided. And I don't need
to give you a long discourse on that, because your Historic Preservation director and Planning
director correctly laid out what the Code provides, what the guidelines are, and how they are
applied, but it's important to understand a couple of things. Number one, as you will see when
the architect presents, this house has underlying zoning rights which allow a building of
approximately 5,200 feet to be built. What is being built, what was approved by the Historic
Preservation Board was a building of 3,400 square feet, and now with some modifications that
are being presented tonight, it is going to be 3, 000 -- approximately 3,019 square feet. One
thing -- and the Chair correctly inquired about this -- that was fuzz -- confused or made fuzzy in
the presentation of that chart of other properties and the sizes of other properties and their sizes
of their lots, which I have not received a copy of that chart, so I would first of all object to its
City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
being considered. Second of all, they confused the gross building area versus the net building
area. For our property, they used a figure of over 4, 000 square feet. That's the gross area, so
clearly, they were included in the garage. They're including balconies. They're including
things that, when you looked at the property records that I believe they were looking at, when
you look at the net square footage, you back out the garage, you back out the balconies, so
their comparison that was presented to this Commission is unreliable, is not verified, has not
been provided to us, nor, I think, the City, and so I would ask that you not consider it. And in
the way he explained it, he clearly was using two standards; judging our house by one standard,
and all the other houses in the neighborhood by another standard to make us look less
favorable. I would also like to just amplify a comment that the Planning & Zoning director and
the Historic Preservation director made as well. The guidelines in the zoning district that we're
in, building size is not based upon FAR (floor/ area ratio); it's a form -based Code. That was the
whole purpose ofgoing through Miami 21; to come up with regulations that deal with height,
setback, front yards, encroachments, and things of that sort. We are within all of those, and
there's no variance being sought, there's no waiver being sought. This is completely compliant
with Miami 21. Furthermore, when you look at the criteria that is in the Code, the guidelines
that is, it is not a street by street, what is your neighbor's house. These are Historic Districts.
The Historic District has a certain character. That character is made of different architectural
styles from different periods of time, and those styles are -- and that overall scale and character
of the neighborhood is what's to be looked at as a guideline. And as you'll see from the staff
report, as Commissioner Russell himselfsaid, this was the gold standard for respect of the
Secretary oflnterior Standards and the Guidelines. And one other thing that is important with
respect to the law: The --
Vice Chair Russell: Just to clarify. I didn't say it was the gold standard to the Secretary; that
when I -- in passing -- in speak speaking with Megan, she said their presentation of -- to the
Historic Preservation Board was basically the gold standard, what they like to see as a
presentation, just to be clear.
Mr. Kasdin: And so the only -- another thing I would like to say is that the presentation, which
was -- the approval which was adopted by the Historic Preservation Board was based on
competent substantial evidence. That evidence, the law clearly allows and provides, can be
provided by the staff report; and the staff report, as was again amplified by the Preservation
director this evening, complies with the Secretary of Standards. That is more than sufficient
evidence within which to uphold and sustain a decision of the Historic Preservation Board.
Now, let me go through my presentation. I'll try to do this quickly. You know where the project
location is. I don't need to take you through that. And I think you've seen the project site. This
is a street view of it. This was a project that was approved by the Historic Preservation Board,
and as -- determined by the staff and by the board to be compatible; that it's a thoughtful
design with comp -- based on comprehensive research of characteristics of the neighborhood
and an integration of those ideas and ideas from the neighborhood. The next page you will see
is the -- an image of the contextual massing; and as has already been made part of the record,
there are numerous two-story homes on the same street, in the same neighborhood, and the
massing is indeed very contextual with respect to what has been built in the neighborhood
historically. Neighborhood outreach: I'd like to talk briefly about that, and you'll see there a
chart before you, going back from September of 2014 through to this month. There have been
numerous meetings with the neighbors. The immediate neighbors, such as Ms. Miller, the
Architectural Review Committee of Morningside, and in general, meetings with the neighbors.
I also have to present to you as well a complete list, dating back from September of 2014
through the end of August, of the various meetings with the Neighborhood Association, and also
the responses to the concerns of the Neighborhood Association. And I would note for the record
that the Historic Preservation director said that: "In the approval by the Historic Preservation
Board, there were certain conditions which were responsive of the requests of the Morningside
Civic Association. " I don't need to really go through with you further the guidelines for issuing
City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
certificates of appropriateness. I think the Planning Department and Historic Preservation
director have done that well. As well, if you look at the staff report, which is the -- certainly
more than enough competent substantial evidence to support the finding of consistency with the
standards, but it bears repeating some of the specific findings of the staff. One, that the overall
scale and rhythm of the structures is in line with the single-family homes along the street. Two,
overall design queues taken from multiple styles found within the Morningside Historic District,
including Mediterranean, mission, art deco, masonry and moderne. It's a combination of
architectural styles in that district. Three, the project does not duplicate a style from the past,
which is verboten by the Secretary of Interior Standards, but rather complements the use of
materials found within the district. Four, the project fits within the overall sense ofscale of the
district and complements its surroundings with appropriate massing and setbacks. And as a
result, this passed unanimously by the HEP Board. Now, what I'd like to do, since this is a de
novo hearing and you need to see the project, is introduce the architects of Dan Architecture,
and that is German Brun, and Lisa Marie Esparza, whose father -- whose parents' home this is.
And their work --and this --we're showing you one of their award-winning projects. Itis
environmentally conscience and contextually sensitive design. That is what they -- they're
among a group of new architects in this town and in this country who specialize in this kind of
architecture. They produce buildings that adapt to local climate, culture and resources.
They've been featured, as you'll see, in many architectural publications, and they are the winner
Of multiple architectural awards, as well. And so what we want to do at this point in time is
introduce German to give -- take you through the project, and more importantly, to take you
through some further changes. Although we're not able to get specific direction from the
neighbors, we -- they have ingested the comments that they've heard and have come up with a
further proposal, which we're offering this evening, so German.
Carlos German Brun: Thank you. Thank you very much. For the record, my name is German
Brun. I'm a partner at Dan Architecture. The other partner of the firm is right here next to us,
Lisa Marie Esparza. We are both registered architects. And personally, I have more than 20
years of experience. I'm a graduate of UC (University of California), Berkeley, and I taught at
all three local architecture schools. What I would like to do is walk you through a couple slides
from the initial presentation that was approved by the Historic Board, and then I would like to
present the revised design. The main characteristic of Morningside as a Historic District is
that there's a multitude ofstyles, of architectural styles. I have personally walked every single
street in the district, and I have surveyed every single home, and we've made an enormous
amount of research and analysis, probably enough to write a book about Morningside, and we
have reached this design, after two years of design work. We started our due diligence period
before the lot was purchased by my father-in-law, who's right here, that flew in Puerto Rico.
We've been in conversations with the neighbors since September of 2014. So as you can
imagine, we are desperate for a conclusion to this situation. Back to the architecture. As you
can see from the slide, the architecture in Morningside has a variety ofstyles; among them are
Mediterranean, mission, vernacular, art deco and streamline. What you see in the next slide is
the result of our analysis through the neighborhood where we've identified a series of
architectural features that we've later incorporated into the design, among which are terracotta
clay vents, balconies, flat roofs, eyebrows, et cetera. And this is the inspiration for the massing
of the originally approved design. It's the Peters' house. And as you can see, we've done an
analysis of the materials and the massing that are at that house, and we've dissected those
geometries into a porch, then an offset second story, the use of file screens, and just the overall
disposition of the windows, and we've used that as inspiration for the design that was approved
by the Historic Board. This is the site plan for the home as originally approved. As you can
appreciate from the site plan, it respects all setbacks. There's even an additional self-imposed
setback on the west side of the property, taking into concern the next-door neighbor's request.
And as you can see, there's not one roof but there's four or five different volumes, and we've
gone out of our way to break up the volumes, so there is a variety in the front faVade.
City of Miami Page 150 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: This is the original plan, right?
Mr. Brun: This is the original -approved design that was unanimously approved 7-0. In the
faVade of that same design, you can see how those different roofs and parapets and eyebrows
are in composition with each other; and how the front porch, which is from a terracotta
Mediterranean tile, how the front porch kind of protrudes out of the house, welcoming the
neighbors. The whole point in the guidelines for Morningside is to have a home that could be
seen from the street. That's why in the guidelines for Morningside, you can't have shrubs taller
than four feet. So, technically, you're supposed to see the home. It's not supposed to be in the
back. Moving along, this is a diagram that illustrates the changes that we are proposing, and
the revised design. Now, these changes and these revisions were graciously approved by the
property owner that's right here. He was willing to make this self-inflicted compromise, this
reduction in mass. He's willing to have a smaller home to have happier neighbors.
Vice Chair Russell: 400 square foot less?
Mr. Brun: Five feet less in height, 400 square feet less in area, pushed back 41 percent on the
side and the front faVade. We are aligning our ground floor plate with the neighbor next to us,
which is actually behind the required setback. We are aligning the second story with the
neighbor on the other side of the home. And from the front fagade, we are reducing the width of
the second story by 41 percent. So as you can see, there's an outline that shows the maximum
allowable height of a pitched roof that will be 36 feet. Then you can see the height of the
previously approved design, which was, I believe, 28.5; and then you see the current height of
the design, maximum height, which will be 23.5, which is lower than the maximum height, and
we're not having any exceptions, whatsoever. So in our opinion, professional opinion, there's
an enormous reduction in scale, especially as perceived from 55th Terrace. This is a rendering
of the revised design within the context of the neighborhood with the trees that exist now.
There's even a tree that's missing that will be smack in front of the house. So --
Vice Chair Russell: That'll be put in later?
Mr. Brun: Yes. Well, no, it's existing there right now. We had to remove the tree to be able to
see the design; otherwise, you would see a forest. So we feel that this design has gone above
and beyond. The owner has been very, very gracious in his concessions. We have modified the
materials. The garage doors are wood -finished. The -- we have added mullions to all the
aluminum doors and windows; and we have added all sorts of architectural features, such as the
clay vents that are visible in the fagade.
Vice Chair Russell: The tree in the front is not the Dade County pine --
Mr. Brun: No.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that was there?
Mr. Brun: No. The tree in the front is a smaller species.
Vice Chair Russell: That one died (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I think.
Mr. Brun: It's in the right-of-way. And I guess -- next slide, please. On this slide, we are
showing a side-by-side comparison with the previous originally approved design. Weare
pushing back the second story 14.3 feet, I believe, from the previous design. And as you can
see, the second story is now aligning with a higher volume of the home next door. This is the
revised site plan where we've added more different features and heights and parapets, and we
feel very happy with this revised design. We believe the process made abetter project, and we
really think this is an award-winning home. And for the final slide, we wanted to leave you with
City of Miami Page 151 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
a close-up of the entrance that shows one of the feature materials that we're planning on using
in the design. For those of you who are interested in historic preservation, there is no more
historic of a material than the material that we're proposing for the entire front faVade. So
frankly, we have no more to give. Thank you.
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair, for our final witness, we'd like to -- I'd like to have --
Chair Hardemon: You have questions for --?
Mr. Kasdin: The architect?
Mr. Broeker: Yeah.
Mr. Kasdin: Sure.
Chair Hardemon: He just has some questions for you, some cross-examination questions.
Mr. Brun: Yes.
Mr. Broeker: Thank you. Just a couple of quick issues. You first met with Judy Miller and
Caroline Meek before you bought the property?
Mr. Brun: Yes.
Mr. Broeker: And she explained to you that there had been other people who had tried to build
on it, and there'd been some issues with some of the designs, but other designs had been
approved?
Mr. Brun: Yes. I've had probably hours' worth of meetings with Ms. Miller. She told me from
the first day that this was a lot that she wanted to buy many, many years ago, and how
emotional she was about this piece of property. After that, she described how she was an active
participant in the denial offour previous designs for this lot. When my father-in-law previously
-- when he purchased the lot, I was very concerned with the scenario, so I went to Ms. Miller
and I asked her personally, "What is the problem with this property? Is there something
wrong? Why did it change owners five times in the last two years? " And she couldn't give me
an answer. I know the answer now.
Mr. Broeker: Did you --did she tell you that she had agreed with one of the sets of plans some
10 or 15 years ago?
Mr. Brun: No.
Mr. Broeker: All right. Are you aware that there's a set ofplans that was designed by an
architect named Brito that was approved without objection?
Mr. Brun: If it's the set of plans that you've shown before, we have no interest in pursuing a
house with that design.
Mr. Broeker: I understand. But were you aware that that design was previously approved?
Mr. Brun: No.
Mr. Broeker: All right. You've discussed a compromise that you proposed this afternoon,
correct?
City of Miami Page 152 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Brun: Yes.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. And you say that you have nothing further to give.
Mr. Brun: The owner has told us this is the absolute point. He will not concede one more inch.
Mr. Broeker: Let me tell you first that I greatly appreciate your effort and your proposed
compromise or new design shows that you were listening to what neighbors were saying. And
recognizing that I not only live across the street, but represent seven different people or seven
different homes on this, it's not easy to get complete agreement. And let me just ask you by way
of a couple of examples. Our interpretation of the applicable guidelines is that the windows are
supposed to be visible from the street, and your new design has windows that are completely
screened by the barrel tile.
Mr. Kasdin: Objection.
Mr. Brun: That's an objection. That's incorrect.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. Well --
Mr. Brun: There is a new -- if we go back the slide, can we show the front favade? There's
actually a two-story window that's not screened at the stairwell. The front faVade, please.
Right there. If you can see red in this image, and I bought a laser pointer especially for this
today. Let's see if it works.
Vice Chair Russell: Doesn't work on the monitor.
Mr. Brun: If you see to the right of the fagade, there is a two-story window, right where the
stairwell is. All the doors to the master balcony, all the doors to the master bedroom are clear,
visible.
Mr. Broeker: Right. Got it.
Mr. Brun: And furthermore, when I was at the site this week, I noticed all the neighbors had
curtains. So my question is to you, "Why do you want to see everybody's windows if you're
going to cover them with curtains? "
Mr. Broeker: On the outside of the fagade, you see window, correct? And then you may not be
able to see into the house --
Mr. Brun: Curtain, yes.
Mr. Broeker: -- but you see the window.
Mr. Brun: Our property owner is willing to forego the curtains if you allow him a terracotta
screen. What's wrong with that?
Mr. Broeker: So let me ask you the question. For the ground floor terracotta screen, would
you be adverse to having that screen only go halfway up the window opposed to all --?
Mr. Brun: Absolutely.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. And then for the two-story window, would you be adverse to having it be
City of Miami Page 153 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
two windows with a -- an area in between? Because there are no two-story windows anywhere
else in the Historic District.
Mr. Kasdin: You know, I would object, because I -- among other things, it's not -- he's not
questioning him about his testimony, but what he is doing is underpinning how there will never
bean end to this process if we are forced to sit down and negotiate. There will always be some
other subjective design request made, and that is, I think, why Mr. Brun has -- and Mr.
Esparza, more importantly, has said what he said.
Mr. Broeker: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: I'll sustain the objection. I know you're not finished with the witness, though,
so I know you may have a few -- counselor, you were doing great when it comes to
cross-examining him about the issues that you -- that he presented, but you are going a bit
beyond the direct.
Mr. Broeker: Okay. I just didn't want to leave it like that. I -- because my point is, recognizing
that there are a number of different opinions that I'm trying to process, would you be adverse to
a deferral so that we can --?
Mr. Brun: Absolutely. We want a decision right now.
Mr. Broeker: Okay.
Mr. Brun: Thankyou.
Mr. Broeker: Judy Miller wanted to correct the record. Do you want her to do it now or on
rebuttal? Because there were some statements --
Chair Hardemon: On rebuttal. That's what you use it for.
Mr. Broeker: Right.
Mr. Kasdin: One final brief witness: Mr. Jose Esparza, who is the owner of the property. He
will need a translator, because he's not fluent in English. Mr. Esparza.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: I think the City will provide someone as a translator.
Chair Hardemon: What language does he speak?
Unidentified Speaker: Spanish.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Spanish.
Chair Hardemon: Spanish.
Jose Esparza: Good afternoon, sirs.
Chair Hardemon: "Uno momento, por favor. "
Mr. Esparza: Excuse me?
Chair Hardemon: One moment.
City of Miami Page 154 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Esparza: I'll try to do in English. IfI need to translate, I'll ask --
Chair Hardemon: Well, do you feel comfortable speaking in English?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Where's the --
Mr. Esparza: Not so comfortable. I'll try. I respect your panel. I'll try to speak in English.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Unidentified Speaker: Want me to translate?
Chair Hardemon: No. It wouldn't be acceptable for you to translate. Let me finish, everyone.
It wouldn't be acceptable for anyone else to translate, except an official translator. If you feel
comfortable moving forward answering questions in English, you're free to do so.
Mr. Esparza: I can try, but in any moment, I can need maybe for the questions, you know.
Unidentified Speaker: You'd prefer (UNINTELLIGIBLE), they can do it in Spanish.
Mr. Esparza: Yes, please. Okay, thank you very much, sir.
Chair Hardemon: She's the interpreter. We don't have one?
Mr. Esparza: In Espanol.
Chair Hardemon: You didn't think about the witnesses.
Mr. Esparza: Buenos estades. Ah, sorry.
Chair Hardemon: You didn't think about the witnesses.
Mr. Esparza (as translated by Legislative Services Supervisor/City Clerk's Office, Maricarmen
Lopez): Good afternoon to all. With all due respect, I would like to expose my point of view.
It's not the architectural point of view. I have my son for this topic. And it's not the legal
matter, because I have the distinguished lawyer. I bought the property at Morningside because
I like it, because it's a tranquil community. Yes. I'm 63 years old, and my wife, 67. We
understand that it's an adequate location for peaceful living. We currently live in Puerto Rico.
We're transferring here because we have our sons and grandkids here. Yeah, okay. My idea is
to integrate to the community. I will have to learn a bit more English.
Chair Hardemon: Probably not.
Mr. Esparza (as translated by Legislative Services Supervisor/City Clerk's Office, Maricarmen
Lopez): But we respect the neighbors. I told my son, the architect, later that the property was
unanimously accepted by the panel, including the objections from the neighbors. We decided
not to move it forward, but just to take a step back, and I prefer and believe that I should have a
smaller property and neighbors that are content. I worry to see them, that they're not content.
Yes. I believe that the only "wrongdoing, " in quotations, is to have two good architects.
Another option would be to build a small home with a roof, and I believe that that will diminish
the property value.
Chair Hardemon: Counselor, I know we're very relaxed with how we present witnesses, but
here, if you can direct the witness somewhat, because it doesn't seem to be that he's adding
City of Miami Page 155 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
information for us to consider that will render our decision.
Mr. Esparza (as translated by Legislative Services Supervisor/City Clerk's Office, Maricarmen
Lopez): Okay. I'm worried that the gentleman is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that the lot of the
property -- the size of the lot. Yes. I believe that he's respecting [sic] the architects, calling the
property a box. The neighbor, we've been trying to satisfy her needs and all
(UNINTELLIGIBLE), but she told us that she has a pool, and that she doesn't want no one to
see her while she's bathing in the pool. Thank you --
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, very much.
Mr. Esparza (as translated by Legislative Services Supervisor/City Clerk's Office, Maricarmen
Lopez): --for listening to my comments.
Mr. Broeker: IfI could just ask the gentleman a couple of questions?
Chair Hardemon: You want to cross-examine that witness?
Mr. Broeker: Yeah. I want him to understand -- Do you understand that we very much like the
proposed revisions?
Mr. Esparza: Oh, thank you.
Mr. Broeker: And that the proposed revisions we do not refer to as a big box?
Mr. Esparza (as translated by Legislative Services Supervisor/City Clerk's Office, Maricarmen
Lopez): Thank you very much.
Mr. Broeker: And that we're simply asking for more time to get an agreement on our side about
certain very small architectural issues.
Mr. Esparza: Yes. Sir, I'm sorry. But I think you need all the life --you don't --you didn't cut
the time. Never and never and never. No. No, sir. Thank you, but no. I need this panel to
decide they are professionals in this items. I need they [sic] to decide for you or for me right
now, sir.
Mr. Broeker: Okay, but --
Mr. Esparza: They are the law.
Mr. Broeker: -- we're talking about -- do you understand that we're talking about two different
plans now? We're talking about the plan that is before the Commission --
Chair Hardemon: The interpreter, please make sure you speak into the microphone.
Mr. Esparza: No. It's -- sorry. I understand that it's the same home, but little. Yes, yes. I
prefer to have a little home, and you will be happy. You happy. Okay, sir? But we have the
professionals; don't lose time. These persons, you know --and you and me, please, please.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Broeker: I just wanted to make sure you understood that we like the revised home. It's the
original home that we don't like.
Mr. Esparza: Yes. No, no. We need the professional opinion, sir, for you or for me. Thank you
City of Miami Page 156 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
very much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair --
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Mr. Kasdin: --this concludes our presentation. I just would like to end with a comment that
you can see by going through the presentation and showing you the changes, it's very easy to
see how this is beneficial to the neighborhood, and it's a huge concession on their part. And if
the reason for continuing or deferring this is to decide minimal design details with respect to
the house, that is not an appropriate use of this board's authority and discretion or imposition
to be put on the applicant. So with that, we respectfully request that the appeal be denied. We
will stipulate for the record that that proposal, which has been presented tonight, will be the
design going forward, subject to staffs approval, which we believe we'll receive. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: And counselor, you know, understand that we don't sequester any witnesses
here, so all of the witness have an opportunity to hear each other's testimony, so I know that
you had some rebuttal witnesses, but understand that although they are here as rebuttal
witnesses, they had a chance to hear all the testimony, so, you know, even though they may --
they're allowed to say if they believe something is different, but let's not go too far with the
rebuttal. Understood? And Vice Chairman --
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: -- and what I mean by that is just that many times, if there's a discrepancy
between testimony between witnesses, when they don't hear each other's testimony, it gives the
listeners, or the fact -finders an opportunity to really and truly weigh in on who they believe is
telling -- is being truthful. So when you hear both sides of it, it's kind of like you can create
your response, if you will, to seem like it's more truthful than it could be if you didn't hear the
other witnesses' responses.
Mr. Broeker: Right. And so what I wanted to do is present an architect who lives in the
neighborhood, Robert John Graboski -- and I'm sorry -- who can speak to what really is an
interpretation issue, because what we're talking about is, you know, we have some rules, and we
have an interpretation by staff that we strongly disagree with.
Chair Hardemon: Absolutely.
Mr. Broeker: And so -- and recognize that we -- our presentation is not based upon the
proposal that was given to us today. We're -- you know, for that, we're asking for additional
time. Our presentation is based upon the proposal that was approved by the HEP Board that
we, you know, disagree with. So we just let --
Vice Chair Russell: So is the architect going to speak to the old plan ?
Robert John Graboski: I'll speak to actually both, if that's okay. The first thing is, is that --
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name --
Mr. Graboski: -- on behalf of the applicant --
Chair Hardemon: -- for the record.
City of Miami Page 157 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Graboski: Oh. Robert John Graboski. I reside at 6011 North Bayshore Drive, in the
Morningside District. I'm part of the Morningside Civic Association. I sit on the Architectural
Review Committee. I'm a previous member of the Historic & Environmental Preservation
Board, so I do have some experience with all of this and what is before you today. We did meet
with the applicant a while ago.
Mr. Kasdin: May I, Mr. Chair, briefly voir dire the expert?
Chair Hardemon: Absolutely. Sure.
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Raboski, is it?
Mr. Graboski: Graboski, yes.
Mr. Kasdin: Graboski. Would you please provide --tell me what your academic credentials
are in architecture?
Mr. Graboski: I have a bachelor of architecture from the University of Miami.
Mr. Kasdin: Okay. And do you currently practice?
Mr. Graboski: Yes, I do.
Mr. Kasdin: Okay. What area of architecture do you practice? What is your specialty?
Mr. Graboski: Single-family residents.
Mr. Kasdin: And where is --or is predominantly your work?
Mr. Graboski: We workfrom Key Biscayne, City of Miami, Miami Beach, Bal Harbor, Bay
Harbor. I have one, two, three projects going on in Morningside right now.
Mr. Kasdin: Okay. And what style of architecture do you specialize in, if any?
Mr. Graboski: There's not a specialty style. I mean, we have done Mediterranean. We have
done modern, and many things in between.
Mr. Kasdin: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Graboski: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: So we'll accept you as an --
Mr. Graboski: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: -- expert on the --
Vice Chair Russell: Can I just --?
Chair Hardemon: -- information.
Mr. Graboski: And I appreciate that. So I just want to point out a couple things. We have
been meeting with this applicant. We had the first meeting, which our comments were that the
City of Miami Page 158 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
entire front porch that is now screened with this terracotta clay tile was actually originally
presented to us as brick, and Morningside has a specific guideline about porch enclosures. If
we're going to be calling this a porch, we shouldn't have a wall that goes up from the floor to
the ceiling, because it's all enclosed, it's not considered a porch, and that was our main
concern. They also had a selection of the brick -- like a stone -- might have been like a coral
stone, and then this clay tile. We had just asked, you know, how do these materials come
together? We questioned the box, because we thought it just needed something to be a little bit
more soft, because the whole mass was in the front. With this design, definitely, I mean, we all
agree that they're, you know, addressing the massing issue. There's just a personal concern
about this porch with the screen going all the way up from floor to ceiling; is it enclosing the
porch? Kind ofgoing against, you know, what we're trying to do with this being open. You
know, and asking, you know, these people here that have put a lot of time into looking at this,
you know, if they would approve this right now? It's kind of like asking the Preservation officer,
"Does this meet all the criteria right now?" Time is needed to just at least think about this,
because are you approving this design, the first design? So there's some questions that I think
we would have as to, you know, where we're going forward, because this is the third rendition
that was seen of this house and we --
Mr. Kasdin: I --
Mr. Graboski: -- agree that's much better.
Mr. Kasdin: -- Mr. Chair, I object. The testimony -- he was offered up as an expert witness in
Historic Districts and historic architecture, and now he is talking about his personal feelings or
the feelings of the Neighborhood Association, members of it. If he has specific information or
opinion with regard to compliance or not with the Secretary oflnterior Standards and
appropriate Historic Preservation Architecture Guidelines, he should address those.
Chair Hardemon: I will sustain your objection in that sense.
Mr. Graboski: I'll kind of wrap it up, because I was here just representing the neighborhood,
because we had been involved in here since the beginning. But there's some tweaks that we still
feel that might need to be done to make it, you know, fit within our neighborhood, so that's what
we're just asking for; just please give us that consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Kasdin: Again, I object. He --as an expert on historic preservation architecture to
overturn the decision below, the testimony has to be as to how it is not compliant with the
guidelines, and there was no such testimony. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I think --
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: IfI might, just very briefly, because this particular kind ofappeal, at least, I
don't think is one that the Commission hears with any frequency. I just wanted to very briefly
read here that what the Code provides is that: `Applications relating to new construction, the
proposed work shall not adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic character of the
subject structure or the relationship in congruity between the subject's structure and its
neighboring structures and surroundings, including but not limited to form, spacing, height,
yards, materials, color rhythm, and pattern of window and door openings and building favades;
nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historic
architectural or aesthetic interest or value in the overall historic site or Historic District,
City of Miami Page 159 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
except where special standards or guidelines have been specified in the designation of a
specific historic resource or Historic District, or where the board has adopted additional
standards and guidelines for a particular designated historic resource or district. Decisions
relating to alterations or new construction shall be guided by the U.S. Secretary oflnterior
Standards and Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. " Thank
you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I think we've come to a conclusion with all the
evidence that we'll -- that's going to be put on for the board to consider. Is there a --?
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: I thought that was your rebuttal. You have one more rebuttal witness? All
right, is there any particular --?
Ms. Miller: We just need to correct the record (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Can you please direct her, please? Direct her so that we know where we're
going.
Ms. Miller: No. I just wanted in rebuttal --
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: State your name and address.
Ms. Miller: Oh. Judy Miller, 537 Northeast 55th Terrace. Their architect stated that --for the
record today that my partner and I, Caroline, fought all four proposals for this lot. That is
untrue, and he knows it. We fought the one in 2002 that the HEP Board recommended against,
and then we met with the property owner; and not only did we like the new design, we went to
the MC and asked them to write a letter in favor of it. There were two more, apparently,
proposals for that lot, that we didn't even know about until recently, that had gone through the
HEP Board, because the HEP Board no longer puts up the red notices. So to say we fought all
four is completely incorrect. Final correction of the record --
Mr. Kasdin: For the record, that's a mischaracterization --
Chair Hardemon: I'll allow --
Mr. Kasdin: -- of his testimony.
Chair Hardemon: -- you to cross him, please.
Ms. Miller: I don't -- he implied that he's been meeting with us continuously, since September
2014. Your own chart shows that he met with the neighbors twice. He met with us in September
2014 to say he was thinking of buying the property; and actually, that's when my partner and I
said, "You seem like a really nice couple. We'd hate for you to lose money. This is a Historic
District." We offered to show him the Brito plan. He told my partner he already had it. So he
met with us to say he was buying the property. We said, "Welcome." You know, "Be
forewarned. It is a Historic District, but we welcome you." The next meeting was when he
asked me what I thought, and we said --we asked him for four things. We said the
contemporary design, we said the air conditioning units, and a couple other things. And his
response was, "I'll give you" -- "I'll put up a wall to block off the side kitchen " that they have
outside our bedroom window, and he said he'd move the air conditioner units. The two other
things he didn't agree to. And his condition for me for doing the air conditioner unit and the
partial wall were that I had to agree to testify for his project, and I never agreed to do that.
City of Miami Page 160 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Okay, thank you very much. One second, ma'am. Do you have any cross of
Mr. Kasdin: Mr. Chair, just for the record, that doesn't even need a -- think be a cross. She
mischaracterized Mr. Brun's testimony. His testimony was that she said that she opposed four
applications for that site. He did not say that she opposed them. That's what she told him.
Chair Hardemon: All right.
Mr. Broeker: I just want to make clear, we may not have any more witnesses, because I believe
I understand correctly that the original proposal is no longer the proposal that you 're seeking to
be approved by the Commission. If the Commission were to approve tonight, it would be the
revised proposal that was just presented to us today, right?
Mr. Kasdin: Yes. We will stipulate that what you have been --has been presented this evening
is what we will submit for plans and be bound by.
Mr. Broeker: Okay, all right. 'Cause the other two witnesses were to the massing and scale
issues, which we feel are addressed by that, so we would -- we still request a deferral, because
we have some disagreement within our group about particular little architectural touches, and
I'm actually not sure whether that disagreement is even among the appellants. It may just be
among other folks in the Civic Association, and that's why I wanted to have a little time to get
that straight. But I do want to say, the revised proposal does deal with the scale and massing
issues, and so our last two witnesses don't need to test because that's what you're voting on
now.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for your presentations and
for keeping it civil. That was great. I've seen it get heated between these groups, and this was
a positive step. Megan, I have a question, please. The one remaining concern that they
brought -- or at least one of their remaining concerns was about the barrel tile screen in front,
and I do notice that in the renderings, where you're looking straight on at the faVade, it looks
invisible; you can see through the barrel tile. But if you go to any angle, such as page 31, it
kind of becomes a wall, right? Because you can no longer -- because of the length of the barrel
tile, you can no longer see through it. Is a screen like that not allowed in the -- so -- that's the
full depth.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: Right. Okay. I thought it was the long ones.
Ms. Schmitt: Oh, no, no. This is --this would be the depth.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Is there any rule within the Historic District about screens like
that?
Ms. Schmitt: I wouldn't be able to approve something like that at staff level, but at the HEP
Board level, they can, and they did.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. All right. Gentlemen, do you have any discussion or questions
about this?
City of Miami Page 161 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Looks a lot nicer than the second version.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I would very much, you know, wish that we all had time to get to, you
know, 100 percent accord, and, you know, I actually think we'd never get there, honestly.
There's always accounting for taste.. You know, there's always going to be differences of
opinion. But I do really applaud the owner and the -- you know, you certainly have given up
financial value. You've given up square footage on this house, where the whole idea of the cube
is to maximize every inch of square foot. And I was surprised to see you come with this, and I'm
very thankful, because that was what I left that meeting with -- very concerned about, and I
didn't say it to you, actually; I don't know if you read my mind. But the rest of it, I really have
good faith in our HEP Board. I have good faith in Megan Schmitt. And, you know, it's -- I was
hoping we could come with full accord and that the appeal would be withdrawn. I respect your
position to hold your ground, but I am prepared to make a decision here today on this. And
with that, I would move that we deny the appeal.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to deny the appeal.
Mr. Kasdin: Is that on the understanding that --?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, absolutely; that the presented -- the new plans, and the revised square
footage, and the numbers that were presented in this particular document -- because they're
very specific, the square footage and everything -- are what they present for plans.
Commissioner Carollo: So with the amendment.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: That would be to deny the appeal and approve the certificate of
appropriateness, as modified by the plans filed today. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: That's what he said.
Vice Chair Russell: My biggest concern was to address the massing for the direct neighbors on
either side, and I do believe they've done that as best they can.
Chair Hardemon: All right. Is there any further discussion about the issue?
Mr. Hannon: Excuse me, Chair?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Mr. City Attorney, does that amend the legislation?
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, because -- it only amends it insofar -- it's going to deny the appeal, and
that the only amendment is going to be that the certificate is approved, as modified by the plans
filed today.
Mr. Kasdin: Subject to staff approve -- I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, subject to staff approval, yes. That's it. That's the sole amendment,
okay?
City of Miami Page 162 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Hannon: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: Unless you all would like to withdraw your appeal?
Mr. Broeker: Based upon the stipulation --and I think there's --what? --six pages, seven
pages that you gave to us? Those are the same seven pages that --
Mr. Kasdin: They're in the record.
Mr. Broeker: No. I think this is probably the cleanest way for us to go forward, because it's
clear what they're doing; it addresses the scale massing setback issues (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: You mean to leave it in -- leave the appeal in place; have it denied
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Mr. Broeker: On the stipulation -- have it denied on the stipulation that the revised plans that
were submitted today --
Vice Chair Russell: Excellent.
Mr. Broeker: -- are the plans that they're proceeding on.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion? Seeing none -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) this is
not a -- is this an ordinance? No.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: No, no.
Chair Hardemon: All in favor --
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: This is going to be a resolution.
Chair Hardemon: All in favor, indicate so by saying, "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against?
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Mr. Hannon: As amended.
Mr. Kasdin: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission.
Mr. Suarez -Rivas: As amended. Thank you.
END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
CITYWIDE
HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO
City of Miami Page 163 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS
DISTRICT 1
COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item DI J, please see "Order of
the Day. "
END OF DISTRICT 1
DISTRICT 2
VICE CHAIR KEN RUSSELL
D2.1 DISCUSSION ITEM
16-01219
District 2 - DISCUSSION ON FUNDING AND ACTIVATING VIRGINIA KEY.
Commissioner Ken
Russell
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on
the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item D2.1 to the October
13, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
Chair Hardemon: All right, there is a discussion item, D2.1, by Vice Chairman Russell.
Vice Chair Russell: Very briefly, gentlemen. It was just about Virginia Key.
Commissioner Suarez: Bye.
Vice Chair Russell: This always happens, doesn't it?
Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) pocket item.
Vice Chair Russell: I will respectfully table it -- defer it for another time.
Chair Hardemon: All right. So we'll defer it to the next Commission agenda meeting. Seeing
there's no other order of business that is on the agenda, this meeting has adjourned.
Jose Esparza: Thank you to all of you. Good-bye.
END OF DISTRICT 2
DISTRICT 3
COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO
END OF DISTRICT 3
Citv ofMiami Page 164 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
DISTRICT 4
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ
END OF DISTRICT 4
DISTRICT 5
CHAIR KEON HARDEMON
END OF DISTRICT 5
FUTURE LEGISLATION
FLA ORDINANCE First Reading
16-00896
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI DEVELOPMENT
OF REGIONAL IMPACT, ENCOMPASSING AN AREA OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN
PARK WESTAREA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN,
PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
PROPOSED BY THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY;
AUTHORIZING AN INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT ORDER; APPROVING
SAID DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACTAFTER CONSIDERING THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCILAND THE CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ZONING AND
APPEALS BOARD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE INCREMENT III
DEVELOPMENT ORDERATTACHED HERETO AS "EXHIBIT A", THE
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, INCORPORATED HEREIN
BY REFERENCE, AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED
HEREIN BY REFERENCE; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING THAT THE INCREMENT III
DEVELOPMENT ORDER SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND
SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALLACTIONS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE
CITY'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT
ORDER; PROVIDING FORATERMINATION DATE; PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
60 -DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: September 14, 2016 - November 12,
2016
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
Miami
FINDING(S):
City ofMiami Page 165 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
September 7, 2016, by a vote of 9-1.
PURPOSE: This will amend the Downtown Development of Regional Impact
("DRI") by authorizing an Increment III Development Order.
@ DYAD] 0[•]kiIvilN=10I
NAA RESOLUTION
16-01374
NON -AGENDA ITEM(S)
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A
SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2016, AT 11:00
A.M., AT MIAMI CITY HALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING TWO (2)
PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSIONS CONDUCTED UNDER THE
PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES.
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
R-16-0454
Chair Hardemon: We'll break for lunch and comeback at 2 p.m.?
Commissioner Suarez: We can do that, then we --
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): There are two shade meetings, Mr. Chairman, so when
we come back, if the elected officials can go upstairs, and the Chairman will have to open the
meeting, please.
Chair Hardemon: Let me ask you a question. I'm not sure if it's that time sensitive, but right
now, we have a tentative meetings scheduled for -- a special meeting for the 29th of next week.
Is it possible to continue those shade meetings until the 29th?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, for the afternoon.
Chair Hardemon: I would imagine that we have some authority to do something like that.
Vice Chair Russell: What were they?
Commissioner Gort: The Tinnie one in particular, any one of them.
Vice Chair Russell: Virginia Key was one of them?
Mr. Min: That's fine. I will have to read the notices into the record, and I can do that later, if
you'd like, but we can continue them till the 29th.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Citv ofMiami Page 166 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Were none of them time sensitive, though, with regard to the litigation
that's involved?
Chair Hardemon: That's the ultimate question. I mean, is it so urgent that we can't survive and
continue this to our next shade meeting?
Vice Chair Russell: One is the --
Chair Hardemon: I mean till our next Commission meeting.
Vice Chair Russell: -- Virginia Key issue.
Mr. Min: One is Key Biscayne. I know there's been discussions between the non -lawyers. It's
my understanding, though, that the litigation can wait, so that can -- we can wait for that. The
other one is concerning Allen Morris Park. There's also an agreement to hold off on discovery
currently, so we can continue that for a week, as well.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is there a motion to do that?
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: To have these discussions on that special meeting date?
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: All right. It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Seconded by
Commissioner Suarez. Any further discussion on that? Motion passes.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): So for the record, we are now -- the special meeting on
September 29 at 9 a.m. is not only going to include the discussion about the Attorney; that's
also going to have AC.1 and AC.2?
Chair Hardemon: That is correct.
Mr. Min: I believe that what Mr. Hannon is getting at is pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City
Code, when you call a special meeting, it has to be for a specified purpose, so I'm assuming
that the previous motion --
Chair Hardemon: But --
Mr. Min: -- setting the special meeting needs to be --
Chair Hardemon: -- I'm not sure if it needs to be -- well, let's rephrase, then. I'm not sure if it
has been rescinded. What I'm saying is this: We want to have an attorney-client session on
those days -- on that day. I'm not saying that it's necessarily -- is that fair? Can we have an
attorney -- can we -- Let me ask you a very important question. Can we have an attorney-client
session without having a Commission meeting?
Mr. Min: Yes --
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Min: -- butyou would have to call a special Commission meeting in order to have an
attorney-client session.
City of Miami Page 167 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Gort: But we have the special Commission meeting.
Chair Hardemon: Right. So --
Mr. Min: So it doesn't have to be on a typical --
Chair Hardemon: -- we already have a committee meeting -- we already have -- I'm sorry. We
already have a Commission meeting. So now that we already have a Commission meeting, is it
possible now to have an attorney-client session on that same day?
Mr. Min: Only if the resolution creating the special Commission meeting specifies so, because
you can only have a special Commission meeting based on the purpose that it's called for.
Chair Hardemon: Right. No, I understand that we can have the special Commission meeting
on the --for the purpose of whatever it's called for. But my question to you is this: Say, for
instance, on Friday, we want to have an attorney-client -- I mean an attorney-client session --
right? -- also known as a shade meeting. Do we need to have a special Commission meeting to
have that on that Friday?
Mr. Min: You can have a shade meeting at a Commission meeting. You can only have
Commission meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of every month. You can have special
Commission meetings upon a calling of the Commission, which specifies what that Commission
meeting -- the pur -- the agenda of that Commission meeting.
Chair Hardemon: So can we have shade meetings where there's no Commission meeting?
Mr. Min: Only ifa special Commission meeting has been called.
Commissioner Gort: That's it.
Chair Hardemon: So then attorney -- so the shade meetings can only happen on special
Commission meetings and on regularly -scheduled meetings of the Commission?
Mr. Min: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Right. Now, it's clear. I asked that, very importantly, because there is --
there was a comment made earlier about having shade meetings on dates that are not the
Commission meeting hearing dates; that's why I asked that. And so, now, what I'd like to
entertain is a motion to -- we won't have to rescind. We can just -- a motion to mod -- well,
no.
Mr. Hannon: I think a separate motion for the attorney-client sessions --
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Mr. Hannon: -- and then specifying a time would be --
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
City of Miami Page 168 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Mr. Hannon: --most appropriate.
Chair Hardemon: So we already have a motion to --
Commissioner Gort: Have a special meeting.
Chair Hardemon: -- approve -- or to set a special -- well, the attorney-client session 1 and
attorney-client session 2 that's on today's agenda for Thursday, the 29th, and let's set it at 11
a.m., if there is no objection to that. Okay, seeing no objection, then is there any further
unreadiness about it?
Commissioner Carollo: Should we have this first?
Chair Hardemon: Should we have whatfirst?
Commissioner Carollo: The (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: No. We'll have it after the --
Commissioner Carollo: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: --discussion. Seeing no further objection --I'm sorry for my
tongue-twistedness about this whole thing -- all in favor, say "aye. "
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Come back for lunch at 2 o'clock.
Vice Chair Russell: 2 p.m.
Chair Hardemon: 2 p.m. This meeting is in recess.
NA.2 DISCUSSION ITEM
16-01422
DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONER GORT REGARDING SUPPORT FOR
THE CHARITABLE ART EVENT ENTITLED "STREET ART FOR MANKIND
(SAM)", A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WHOSE MISSION IS TO
STOP CHILD SLAVERY THROUGH ART.
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Can you read into the record the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agen -- PZ
procedures?
Ms. Mendez: Yes, thank you, Chairman. We will --
Commissioner Gort: Excuse me. I have my pocket item. The people will be walking in any
minute --
Chair Hardemon: Oh, yes. Before we go there.
Commissioner Gort: --for the --
Chair Hardemon: But it passed, though, right? No, no, the pocket item didn't pass.
City of Miami Page 169 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Chair Hardemon: We haven't addressed that yet.
Commissioner Gort: You all have the backup material; am I correct?
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Gort: Commissioners, you all have the backup material?
Chair Hardemon: Let's bring our attention --
Commissioner Gort: It was delivered to your offices.
Chair Hardemon: -- to the pocket item of Commissioner Gort to consider. Yes, it was hand --
they were hand -delivered to the office. The item is re --in regards to SAM, Street Art for
Mankind.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. They'll becoming in any minute. I want them to explain even
further. I know Mr. Decker is going to be here, and he's going to make a presentation. I was
moved by the work that this organization is doing to stop slavery worldwide on children. This is
an organization that -- I'm ask -- what I want to do in this pocket item, I'm going to ask the
Administration to -- okay, they're here now. Tell them they're on. This is events. It's going to
take worldwide into five different city. Miami is going to be the first city where it's going to
take place. Good afternoon and welcome; good timing.
Thibault Decker: I'm going to shut my phone down. Sorry. I was just --
Commissioner Gort: You're on.
Mr. Decker: Okay. So -- sorry. Hi. My --
Commissioner Gort: We want you to go the --explain what SAM stands for, what you guys do
as a non -for-profit and -- we have it. And at the same time, the event that you're going to take
place. My understanding is it's going to be five cities throughout the world, and Miami is going
to be the number one.
Mr. Decker: Yes, indeed. So SAM -- Street Arts for Mankind.
Commissioner Gort: Introduce your name.
Mr. Decker: Oh, yes. I'm sorry, I apologize. So my name is Thibault Decker. I am the
president of SAM, the nonprofit that I'm presenting today, I'm coming to present. So Street Art
for Mankind, which you can see with the 3D (3 dimensional) board here, for the ones who are
on this side. So Street Art for Mankind is a nonprofit, creating a art movement, bringing to
Miami 35 of the biggest street artists of the world together to create a huge masterpiece here in
Miami, and deliver a huge message to the world about child slavery and child labor in general.
Our godfather is Kailash Satyarthi, the Nobel Peace Prize winner of 2014, for his work during
30 years against child slavery, so he'll be there, also, at the event. So what we're creating is a
artistic movement where artists from all over the world are coming together to create a very
original, unprecedented masterpiece, based on an exquisite (UNINTELLIGIBLE) concept of the
Serialists. They will then so create, hidden in Miami, which is our first location, and then
reveal it to the world during an exhibition that will last 10 days; which we are opening with the
City of Miami Page 170 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Nobel Peace Prize and delivering a speech. Part of Soul of SAM is --So the first event is
Miami; then we are going to travel the world, and second stop is going to be Paris, France;
third stop, Seoul, Korea; fourth stop, Sao Paolo, Brazil; and to finish in Dubai, during the
Universal Exposition, where we're invited. So the idea of SAM is there's three pillars -- let's say
four pillars to SAM. There is, of course, the artist side, the artistic movement, there is the
Nobel Peace Prize team, of course, with Kailash Satyarthi; there is also the children, because
each time we organize the SAM events, there will be the children; and here in Miami, the
children of Miami -Dade will be working on a big shoebox project. Out of 16 shoeboxes, they
will be attempting to do a bit like the artists, themselves, in teams, a great masterpiece that they
will present, delivering their vision of a child friendly world. So everything starts with the
children, because it is about the children. And the objective of SAM is, again, raising
awareness, making sure that a problem like child slavery, which is very often overlooked, that
everybody is aware of, but, unfortunately, very little take care about it. There are still 168
million kids, unfortunately, across the world, which are still in labor, in hard labor; 85 million
of which are in really terrible conditions. So the purpose that we have is in five years --the
objective that we have, the mission -- is through arts to be able to open the eyes of the world
and help solve the problem; raise money at the same time, because all the art that will be
created at SAM will beat the end sold in an auction for the sole profit ofKailash Satyarthi's
Foundation, KSF, who will be then, with that money, of course, freeing those kids from all over
the world. And I want to insist, also, on one thing, because very often, we have the question of
people -- when we talk about child slavery or labor, everybody believes -- they know it as a
problem on the other side of the world. It is not. I mean, it is happening -- of course, it's
happening in India; of course, it's happening in Pakistan and in Asia in general; it's happening
in Africa; it's happening in South America, where I out of 10 children are today in child labor;
and it happens here, also, in Miami. So why did we choose Miami, other than the fact that we
are, of course, based in Miami? Miami has two very, very important elements for us. First, it's
a cradle of graffiti today, recognized internationally, and that was very important for us to be
there and that the artists, the local artists, also be associated to that. Second, Miami is,
unfortunately, the third hub in the U.S. (United States) for sex trafficking and human trafficking
of kids, and that is also something we wanted to voice out, and that's also why we team locally
with Kristi House, to make sure they also, who are doing a great job, get visibility through
SAM.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. I appreciate it. I don't know if anybody want to have --any
questions?
Vice Chair Russell: It's set just west of Northeast 2nd Avenue --
Mr. Decker: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: -- out where -- west of Belle Meade, that area?
Mr. Decker: So the destination is the crossing of 79th Street Northeast and 2nd Avenue; the
ex -Bank ofAmerica Building.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Mr. Decker: One of our generous --I would say "sponsors" --is Arva Jane, and it belongs to
her. That's it.
Commissioner Gort: Okay. At this time, what I'm going to be asking the Administration, to
prepare an item for next Commission meeting so we can in the regular agenda how we can
partner with the Street Art Mankind --in other words, SAM-- for this very important event. You
explained what the event's going to take place and the purpose of how the funds are going to be
City of Miami Page 171 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
used, and I'm going to commitfrom my office events $5,000, and I hope when you come back,
we can come back with a resolution where we can move on it. I don't want any action taken
today; I just want to make sure you guys are aware what SAM is all about, and how we can help
them. So the Administration.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): We'll do our best. When you said "the next Commission
meeting, "I mean, the deadline for that agenda is like tomorrow. That's kind of --
Commissioner Gort: Well, you and I will --
Mr. Alfonso: --hard.
Commissioner Gort: -- work together on that, okay?
Mr. Alfonso: Okay. Thanks.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Any questions?
Vice Chair Russell: What's the date of the event; November 4?
Mr. Decker: November 4.
Chair Hardemon: November 4.
Mr. Decker: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. So there's time for the next Commission meeting to allocate the
funds.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: It's not an emergency.
Commissioner Gort: Right. Thank you very much, the presentation. We'll be there to help you.
Mr. Decker: Thank you for your time.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
NA.3 ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
16-01423
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION HAS
BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016, AT THE
CITY OF MIAMI CITY HALL, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA 33133. A PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION WILL BE
CONDUCTED UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF §286.011(8), F.S. THE
PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING
WILLANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF 1000 BRICKELL,
LTD., F/K/A 1000 BRICKELL, INC., AND KAI PROPERTIES, LTD. V.
CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 14-11755 CA 23, PENDING IN THE
Citv ofMiami Page 172 Printed on 311512017
City Commission
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE CITY IS
PRESENTLYA PARTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 11:00 A.M. (ORAS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE
COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE
APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE
ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION:
CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL,
AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO,
AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO;
THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION
CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN AND
DIVISION CHIEF FOR LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL
SUAREZ-RIVAS. ACERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE
PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED
AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE
PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILLANNOUNCE
THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
DISCUSSED
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): (INAUDIBLE) read some announcements into the
record?
Chair Gort: Yes, sir. The meeting's (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Min: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the City Commission, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 286.011, Subsection 8, Florida Statutes, the CityAttorney is requesting
that at the special City Commission meeting of September 29, 2016, an attorney-client session,
closed to the public, be held for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the case of
1000 Brickell Limited, formerly known as 1000 Brickell, Inc.; and Ki Properties, Limited,
versus City of Miami, case number 14-11755 CA 23, pending in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami -Dade County. The subject of the meeting will be
confined to settlement negotiations and strategy discussions. This private meeting will begin at
approximately 11 a.m., or soon thereafter, as the Commissioners'schedules permit, and
conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the
City Commission: Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell, and Commissioners
Wrfredo "Willy" Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; the City Manager, Daniel J Alfonso;
the City Attorney, Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and Barnby Min;
Division Chief for General Litigation, Christopher Green; and Division Chief for Land Use
Transactions, Rafael Suarez -Rivas. Certified court reporter will be present to ensure the
session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the
above-cited ongoing litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the special
Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the special Commission meeting
will announce the termination of the attorney-client session.
NAA ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
City of Miami Page 173 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
16-01424
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION HAS
BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2016, AT THE
CITY OF MIAMI CITY HALL, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA 33133. A PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION WILL BE
CONDUCTED UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF §286.011(8), F.S. THE
PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING
WILLANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION IN THE FOLLOWING
CASES: VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO.
15-200 AP, BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLATE DIVISION;
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI AND NATIONAL
MARINE MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION, CASE NO. 3D15-2824,
BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AND VILLAGE
OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-02997 CA 09,
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, TO WHICH THE CITY IS
PRESENTLYA PARTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 11:00 A.M. (ORAS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE
COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE
APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE
ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION:
CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL,
AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO,
AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO;
THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION
CHIEF FOR LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL SUAREZ-RIVAS,
AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY AND
FORREST L. ANDREWS. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE
PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED
AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT
THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE
PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILLANNOUNCE
THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
DISCUSSED
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Additionally, Mr. Chairman and members of the City
Commission, pursuant to provisions Section 286.011, Subsection 8, Florida Statutes, the City
Attorney's requesting at the special City Commission of September 29, 2016 an attorney-client
session, closed to the public, be held for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the
following cases: Village of Key Biscayne versus City of Miami, Case Number 15-200AP, before
the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami -Dade County, Appellate
Division; Village of Key Biscayne versus City of Miami, National Marine Manufacturers
Citv ofMiami Page 174 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
Association, Case Number 3D15-2824, before the Third District Court ofAppeal, and Village of
Key Biscayne versus City of Miami, Case Number 15-02997 CA 09, before the Circuit Court of
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami -Dade County, to which the City is presently a
party. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations, strategy
discussions. The meeting will begin at approximately 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter, as
Commissioners'schedules permit, and conclude approximately one hour later. The session will
be attended by the members of the City Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon,
Vice Chairman Ken Russell, Commissioners Wifredo "Willy" Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis
Suarez; the City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso; City Attorney Victoria Mendez; Deputy City
Attorneys John Greco and Burnaby Min; Division Chief for Land Use and Transactions, Rafael
Suarez -Rivas, and Assistant Citv Attorneys Kerri McNulty and Forrest Andrews. A certified
court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript
will be made public upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the
attorney-client session, the special Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person
chairing the special Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney-client
session.
NA.5
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
16-01385
0 ce of the City
UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
Attorney
THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL
ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION,
CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE
PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION V. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDAAND MICHAEL BOUDREAUX,
CASE NO. 13 -CV -22600, PENDING IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE
CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING WILL BE
CONFINED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY
DISCUSSIONS. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY
2:00 P.M. (ORAS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS'
SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR
LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE
CITY COMMISSION, WHICH INCLUDE CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON,
VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY"
GORT, FRANK CAROLLO AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER,
DANIEL J. ALFONSO, THE CITYATTORNEY, VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY
CITYATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; SENIOR
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HENRY J. HUNNEFELD; DIVISION CHIEF FOR
GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN; THOMAS SCOTT, ESQ.;
AND SCOTT COLE, ESQ. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE
PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THIS SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND
THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF
THE LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED
AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL
ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
Citv ofMiami Page 175 Printed on 311512017
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
DISCUSSED
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Additionally, Mr. Chairman and members of the City
Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Section 286.011, Subsection 8, Florida Statutes, the
City Attorney is requesting at the City Commission meeting of October 13, 2016, an
attorney-client session, closed to the public, be held for the purposes of discussing the pending
litigation in the matter of Securities and Exchange Commission versus City of Miami, Florida,
and Michael Boudreaux, Case Number 13-CV22600, pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. The subject of the meeting will be confined to
settlement negotiations and strategy discussions. This private meeting will begin at
approximately 2 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the Commissioners'schedules permit, and
conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the
City Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell,
Commissioners Wifredo "Willy" Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; the City Manager,
Daniel J Alfonso; the City Attorney, Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and
Barnaby Min; Senior Assistant CityAttorney, Henry Hunnefeld; Division Chief for General
Litigation, Christopher Green, and Tom Scott, Esquire and Scott Cole, Esquire. A certified
court reporter will be present to ensure the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will
be made public upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client
session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the
Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney-client session.
NA.6
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
16-01383
Office of the City
UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
Attorney
THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL
ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION,
CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE
PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF: INTERSTATE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC
V. CITY OF MIAMI, BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, CASE NO. 15-008371 CA 25,
TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLYA PARTY. THE SUBJECT OF THE
MEETING WILL BE CONFINED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR
STRATEGY DISCUSSIONS. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M. (ORAS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE
COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE
APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH INCLUDE
CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL,
COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO AND
FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, FERNANDO
CASAMAYOR; THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY JOHN A. GRECO; DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION
CHRISTOPHER GREEN AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FORREST L.
ANDREWS. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO
ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE
TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION
MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
City of Miami Page 176 Printed on 311 512 01 7
City Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Minutes September 22, 2016
DISCUSSED
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the City
Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011, Subsection 8, Florida Statutes, City
Attorney is requesting at the City Commission meeting of October 13, 2016 an attorney-client
session, closed to the public, be held for the purpose of discussing the pending litigation in the
following case: Interstate Property Holdings, LLC (Limited Liability Company) versus City of
Miami, before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami -Dade
County, Case Number 15-008371 CA 25, to which the City is presently a party. Subject of the
matter will be confined to settlement negotiations, strategy discussions. This private meeting
will begin at approximately 2 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the Commissioners'schedules
permit, and conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by the
members of the City Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman
Ken Russell, Commissioners Wifredo "Willy" Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; the City
Manager, Daniel Alfonso; the City Attorney, Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys, John
Greco and Barnaby Min; Division Chief for General Litigation, Chris Green, and Assistant City
Attorney Forrest Andrews. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure the session is
fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the above-cited
ongoing litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the regular Commission
meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the
termination of the attorney-client session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
END OF NON -AGENDA ITEM(S)
The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
City of Miami Page 177 Printed on 311 512 01 7