Loading...
046-1998 LTC CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 http:\\cI.mlaml-bellch.n.ua ~ L.T.C. No. 46-1998 LETTER TO COMMISSION April 16, 1998 SUBJECT: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and Members of the City Commission Sergio Rodriguez j~-, City Manager ~ TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW/HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1998, REGARDING TH:E LOFTS AT SOUTH BEACH TO: FROM: Please find attached a copy of the transcripts for the Design ReviewIHistoric Preservation Board meeting of Wednesday, February 25, 1998. The transcripts are for your review in preparation for the City Commission meeting of May 6, 1998. If you require additional information, please contact Janet Gavarrete of my office. SRJH:jh Attachment c: Janet Gavarrete, Assistant City Manager F:\CMGR\$ALL\L TC.98\LOFrS 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 DESIGN REVIEW/HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 2 3 4 bf,8 1700 Convention Center Way Wednesday, February 25, 1998 F/tl~ # 18;;"0 bM E: ~cJ (, e III/ill:> TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 19 Hearing in the above-styled cause taken before 5 6 7 /'103 20 the Design Review/Historic Preservation Board, reported 8 9 21 by Maribel Garcia, Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 22 in and for the State of Florida at Large, on Wednesday, 23 February 25, 1998 from 1:00 to 10:30 p.m. 24 25 " IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 2 1 A P PEA RAN C E S: 2 3 CHAIRPERSON: 4 Saul Gross 5 6 Board Members: 7 8 Nicholas Quintana 9 Douglas Duany 10 Arthur Marcus 11 Donald Worth 12 Carlos Touzet 13 14 ALSO PRESENT: 15 16 Tom Mooney 17 Diana Grub 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 3 1 MR. MOONEY: This is File No. 9820. The 2 applicant is requesting design approval for the 3 construction of a seven level mixed use building 4 consisting of eight residential and office studio units 5 and retail space. 6 As the Board will recall this application or 7 a similar came before it on June 3rd of last year. At 8 which time the Board approved a project that 9 physically, essentially, is the same thing as this one 10 except that the actual makeup of the use is different. 11 That project is primarily residential use. 12 I want to correct something for the record, 13 the applicant is proposing to construct an office 14 retail commercial project which less than 25 percent 15 consist of residential units. As such because of the 16 fact that less than 25 percent of the entire unit space 17 consist of residential units following the commercial 18 setback requirements. 19 As you will note the zoning code section 20 states that the application as proposed may require the 21 following variances which will be required for the 22 residential use that was approved by the Board In 23 June. In order for the application to follow the 24 section of the zoning ordinance, more than 25 percent 25 of the total area is residential. If; however, less IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 4 1 than 25 percent of the building is residential as 2 proposed, no variances will be required. I just want 3 to make that clear for the record. 4 Given the fact that esthetically this 5 project is of the same design, circulation and layout 6 as the previous application, which we didn't have any 7 problems with, we are going to recommend that the 8 application be approved subject to the conditions 9 enumerated in the staff report. 10 MR. GROSS: You have a favorable 11 recommendation. Do guys agree with the staff 12 conditions? 13 MS. DOUGHERTY: Yes. 14 MR. GROSS: You are in agreement with all of 15 the conditions? 16 MS. DOUGHERTY: Yes. I am Lucia Dougherty 17 with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I am here 18 today on behalf of Victor Laruso and Bart Sidler 19 (phonetic) who are the principals of the property. 20 Many of you know this history but some of 21 you don't and because you have been incredibly patient 22 today, I will be incredibly brief. This came before 23 the City as a 140 foot building and it is the same 24 building as application No.1, which you continued this 25 morning but it never got filed by my clients because IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 5 1 the City said to them, "We would really like you to 2 reduce the size of this building. It is really out of 3 scale with the character of this neighborhood. It is a 4 commercial neighborhood with one or two story 5 buildings. We would like you to reduce the scale of 6 the building and in return we will support variances 7 for the property." So, my clients came back in and they 8 designed the building and this Board approved the 9 building, exactly this same building, on its first 10 hearing, which is almost unheard of and they did so and 11 they came in and they sought the variances that were 12 required. At that time the staff did not support the 13 variance. They said, "We would like you to push the 14 building over to give a larger view corridor on Dade 15 Boulevard." My clients did that. They redesigned the 16 project giving a larger Dade Boulevard view corridor 17 pushing the building even further north requiring 18 further variances. 19 We, then, went to the Board of Adjustments 20 seeking those variances and there was a four member 21 board, a unanimous vote was required, one member didn't 22 like the design. She didn't care about the variances 23 necessarily but she didn't like the design. As a 24 result, they denied the variances without prejudice, 25 meaning that we can come back in and ask for the IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 6 1 variances on the residential project. Now, the 2 interesting thing about this project is that we don't 3 need the variances because it is an office project, 4 which is why we are here before you today with exactly 5 the same building without any required variances 6 because it is now an office project. 7 MR. GROSS: It is also a new zoning 8 ordinance. 9 MS. DOUGHERTY: That is right, but there is 10 still only four members, so we are still waiting for 11 the 5th member and we will reapply for the residential 12 project but because we don't know if we will be granted 13 those variances or if they will be appealed we are 14 before you today for an as of right building for an 15 office project. We would urge your approval. We do 16 have some protests and I will remind you that they are 17 in a large multi-family building across not only across 18 the canal but across Dade Boulevard, so with that I 19 would like our architect James Mckenzie to come up. 20 MR. GROSS: Just give us a very brief 21 overview because we have seen the plans and we have 22 seen the project before. 23 MR. MCKENZIE: What we are doing here is we 24 are proposing on Purdy (phonetic), this will be Purdy, 25 Dade Boulevard, Bay Road. Across the street from Purdy IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 7 1 we have a municipal park which sits on the bay and 2 across the street from Dade Boulevard. 3 This particular scheme suggests that we will 4 have four retail spaces fronting Purdy, a main entrance 5 into the project from Purdy, a vehicle entrance off of 6 Bay Road, next to the or right across from Beach 7 Towing. We are coming in at this location and then you 8 either ramp up to the second level or you go through 9 and park on the first level. The second level off of 10 this would look like that. At the second level you 11 have the cascading entrance or cascading steps, which 12 you see in the perspective at this location. These 13 will be the retail spaces on Purdy. This would be a 14 view from the park looking towards the building. These 15 double story windows illustrate each one of the lofts. 16 This is a corner view from Dade Boulevard and Purdy 17 Avenue looking at the retail and all of the offices 18 would come up to the 5th floor and the top two levels 19 would be the residential units because within this 20 zoning district we would be allowed to make this 25 21 percent residential, which is what we are proposing. 22 The building itself as it is presented to 23 you today meets the zoning ordinance. It would not 24 require any variances. Furthermore, I would just like 25 to point out for your information that the as of right IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 8 1 on this property would be zero setback on Purdy, zero 2 setback on Dade Boulevard and zero setback on Bay Road 3 and zero setback, again, on the side interior. 4 This particular proposal 1S suggesting that 5 we would allow a seven foot setback on Purdy, a seven 6 foot setback on Bay, a 10 foot, two inch setback at the 7 tower condition, which is the intersection of Purdy and 8 Dade. This is being done or was done as part of the 9 compromise with the administration. After our design 10 review approval, there was an appeal and we compromised 11 by setting back that tower portion so that it met the 12 required setback for the RM2 District because that 13 project was completely residential lofts, we would have 14 been required to follow the RM2 District setbacks that 15 compromise is still part of this proposal even though 16 the property would not be required to do so. 17 MR. GROSS: Thank you very much. Any 18 comments from the public? 19 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I am Santiago Echemendia. I 20 am an attorney with the law firm of Gunster Yoakley 21 Valdes-Fauli and Stewart with offices at One Biscayne 22 Tower. I am here on behalf of the West Bay Plaza 23 Condominium Association which is at 1688 West Avenue 24 and Paul Finey (phonetic) individually who is in 25 Apartment 1101 and Margaret Pietry (phonetic) who is in IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 9 1 Apartment 1201. 2 This is an interesting application. I call 3 this the back door application because, basically, it 4 is the same exact application that was denied by the 5 Board of Adjustment. What they are essentially doing 6 is they are coming in with-- it is interesting if you 7 look at the site plan that was submitted with the 8 previous application, they have 37,800 square feet 9 total, 37,814 square feet total in the new site plan 10 that is dated 12-7-97 and bear with me, I will try to 11 be as quick as possible. I do need to preserve the 12 record. Mr. Chairman, I know you all have been here a 13 very long time as, have I. 14 If you go through the unit type 15 descriptions, it is very interesting. There isn't much 16 of a change in anything except that where as in the 17 units that were previously residential units now they 18 are called office studios but they provide for having-- 19 I would assume that it is envisioned that in those 20 units there is going to eventually be a residential 21 component. Indeed, I believe, Ms. Dougherty has, in 22 fact, indicated that as soon as they get this approval 23 they are subsequently going to file for residential 24 variance. So what they are, basically, doing is 25 positioning themselves so that they can come back IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 10 1 before the Board of Adjustments and say, "Folks, you 2 should grant these variances because the fact is they 3 were approved for a commercial use that is less than 25 4 percent residential and, therefore, you should not deny 5 it for what is in essence a residential use." It is a 6 very creative way of getting around the problem. I have 7 to hand it to them but there are a number of different 8 issues that haven't been addressed and with all due 9 respect to staff. 10 MR. GROSS: Before you get into the legal 11 stuff, can you just tell me what you don't like about 12 the building. 13 MR. ECHEMENDIA: One of the things we do not 14 like about the building is the reason why staff 15 initially appealed this Board's approval of the 16 application and that is the southwest corner of the 17 building. 18 MR. GROSS: You want them to go to the Zoning 19 Board to get a variance? 20 MR. ECHEMENDIA: No. We don't want them to 21 go to the Zoning Board. What we have requested from 22 them from the inception is that they lop off, that they 23 redistribute the floor area ratio as staff had 24 requested them to originally redistribute so that they 25 are not blocking the view corridor. One of the things IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 11 1 that the diagrams do not show you, is put this building 2 in context relative to the view of the bay. This is a 3 gateway to the city and you had other applications 4 before you earlier today where the discussions has been 5 precisely the view corridor. 6 MR. GROSS: But this is the view corridor 7 from your building or from the street? 8 MR. ECHEMENDIA: This is the gateway to the 9 city just as MacArthur Causeway. It is the view of our 10 building towards the bay that is being blocked because 11 of the southwest corner and that southwest corner also 12 blocks the view when you come into the city vis-a-vis 13 the Venetian Causeway or exit the city vis-a-vis the 14 Venetian Causeway. 15 MR. GROSS: Do you have a view from your 16 building? Have you taken the view from your building 17 past this supposed building to show that there is a 18 difference? How do you know that there is a 19 difference? That is what I am wondering. 20 MR. ECHEMENDIA: There are a number of issues 21 in addition to whether our view is blocked. 22 MR. GROSS: I am just trying to understand 23 the design issue. 24 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I, indeed, have been in Paul 25 Finey's apartment and if you are sitting there and you IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 12 1 have the view towards the bay, there is no doubt that 2 this eight story building that is on the entire site 3 will block the view of the bay. It is fairly clear to 4 presume that. 5 MR. GROSS: I am just trying to help the 6 Board envision it but you don't have a tool or anything 7 that would help the Board. 8 MR. ECHEMENDIA: The board members are 9 familiar with where the property is located and they 10 understand that if you put a building that, basically, 11 goes all the way to the corner of Dade and Purdy that 12 encompasses the entire site, that fills the entire 13 site, that a certain view corridor is going to be 14 obstructed and that is the main concern that was raised 15 by staff initially in its recommendation of June 3, 16 1997, where they state and they still have it in the 17 draft recommendation to this Board. 18 MR. GROSS: The reason I keep asking is that 19 I can't picture it. I never have understood the 20 staff's question. 21 MR. MOONEY: Which one was that? 22 MR. GROSS: The one about blocking the view 23 corridor. 24 MR. MOONEY: If the Board recalls this was a 25 big issue when this approval was approved by the Board IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 13 1 in June. We had recommended that the application not 2 be approved last June because of our concern with 3 regard to the view corridor. We suggested that they, 4 essentially, redistribute a large portion of the 5 southwest corner to the other side. The Board 6 disagreed with that decision that we took. Subsequent 7 to that approval, staff had recommended to the 8 administration and the administration based upon 9 recommendations, appealed this decision to the City 10 Commission. Staff then entered into negotiations with 11 the applicant to try to find a resolution to this and 12 what the applicant did was they relocated some of the 13 floor area and began to move, so that you have a much 14 larger amount of open space at the southwest corner of 15 the building. Because they had made that change and 16 because staff felt that we had negotiated In good 17 faith, we didn't, at this point, do an about face. I 18 am, I think in a perfect world we would love to see 19 more of an open view corridor. 20 MR. GROSS: You just recited the history. I 21 am trying to get something tangible that shows us what 22 view corridor you are talking about. 23 MR. MOONEY: Let me show you on this thing. 24 I think this is probably the best one. What 25 we had initially recommended when this project came IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 14 1 before the Board as a different application in June, 2 was that the applicant redistribute this entire portion 3 here. 4 Now, there were a lot of circulation issues 5 with regard to that and I won't get into all that but 6 the bottom line is that they had approved a project 7 with this section being much closer to the property 8 line and much closer to the corner. 9 MR. GROSS: What I am missing is, if you are 10 heading West on Dade Boulevard, what difference does it 11 make? 12 MR. MOONEY: As you are heading west on Dade 13 Boulevard the more open this is, the further that you 14 move west the more of the bay that you will see. The 15 more of the building that is here, the less view 16 corridor you will have. 17 MR. GROSS: If you move ten feet over, then, 18 you will see the whole thing. I just don't get it. 19 MR. MOONEY: Not necessarily. Say you are 20 standing right here on the sidewalk or say you are in a 21 car and you are right here, with this building right 22 here, you don't see the bay. 23 MR. GROSS: So, you advance ten feet. 24 MR. MOONEY: Okay. You advance ten feet, you 25 are still looking this way. You are still looking at IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 15 1 the building. What we are suggesting and, agaln, we 2 can live with this scheme here but with the previous 3 scheme that came very close to the property line, you 4 could be all the way back here and because it is so 5 close to the property it is a detrimental impact on 6 your view. 7 MR. WORTH: I assume it is their view 8 corridor that is being blocked. 9 MR. MACKENZIE: If you look at this 10 photograph, the shadow that you see casted at this 11 intersection is the shadow of that L-shaped building. 12 I would like to note that the section of building that 13 actually parallels Dade Boulevard is minimal as you can 14 see from that shadow. Most of the building is really 15 oriented towards the golf course, towards the 16 northeast. So, what we are talking about impacting is 17 really about ten percent of the people or the massing 18 of that building. 19 I would like to point out one thing just to 20 recall the record of June 3rd. The argument that was 21 presented by the administration was very well contested 22 by the members of the board because Dade Boulevard as 23 you drive west, southwest you are really focusing on 24 the canal and how it comes into the bay. You are not 25 focusing on the right, you are really focusing on the IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 16 1 left. 2 MR. GROSS: I just wanted that clarified. 3 MR. MOONEY: The other issue in addition to 4 that view corridor, was the fact that you had a very 5 large shore wall coming right up to the property line. 6 We felt that there needed to be some relief. The 7 applicant was able to give us that relief that we were 8 looking for in terms of setting back not only the 9 southwest corner portion of the building but they were 10 able by the elimination of two parking spaces to 11 setback most of the south elevation so that you have a 12 much strong landscape buffer between the building and 13 the sidewalk whereas before you almost had the entire 14 building wall fronting the sidewalk. 15 MR. GROSS: They have reached a compromise 16 that you are somewhat happy with, it is not perfect, 17 and you are still not happy with it on behalf of the 18 folks at 1688. 19 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Yes. 20 Mr. Chairman, let me finish with my 21 presentation so that I could preserve the record. 22 There is staff recommendation of June 3, 23 1997, which I would like to incorporate into the 24 record. What staff would like to see is that floor 25 area ratio portion of the southwest portion of the IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 17 1 proposed structure fronting Dade and Purdy be 2 distributed throughout the remainder of the building 3 which may entail a slight increase in the height of the 4 structure. Specifically, it would include but not 5 limited to removing, basically, four units and two 6 parking spaces. 7 That comes up agaln in a draft 8 recommendation for this Board that is dated February 9 25, 1998. Where staff, again, says that in terms of 10 designer view criteria number seven which talks about 11 the layout of the building, the view corridor. It is 12 not satisfied because the view corridor from the west 13 side of the property towards Biscayne Bay are 14 negatively impacted over all massing of the proposed 15 structure. Moreover, in that draft recommendation they 16 also have a language which is deleted and does not form 17 part of the recommendation before you that it is 18 suggested that the floor area ratio, again, the same 19 language where they have there drudgers (phonetic) they 20 would like that the certain floor area ratio on the 21 southwest corner be redistributed or altogether taken 22 out. 23 One of the things that I would note because 24 you have raised the issue earlier today, Mr. Chairman 25 is that there is zoning in progress at this property. IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 18 1 They are at 2.0 F.A.R. The current F.A.R. is 1.75. 2 There are some other issues; however, that 3 bear noting. The level of service on the roadways on 4 Alton Road between 17th and 21st is at level service E 5 and you have repeatedly today stated that this Board 6 does not make policy. You are absolutely right. It is 7 the Commission that makes policy and the Commission set 8 its policy by denying the 20 venetian project precisely 9 on the level of service issue based on almost the 10 identical facts that we have before you today. 11 There is a mitigation plan that has been 12 submitted to FDOT. Since the 20 Venetian hearing FDOT 13 has submitted a letter saying-- actually I step back, 14 that the letter from FDOT came before the 20 Venetian 15 hearing. In that letter FDOT, basically, says, "Yes, 16 we conceptually approve the consultant's proposal; 17 however, provided that they address the following 18 concerns," and they list three concerns, which is my 19 understanding to date have not been addressed and that 20 is the proposed split phasing at the intersection of 21 Alton and 17th does not accommodate pedestrian crossing 22 in the east/west direction. The control radius-- and I 23 won't get into the detail but I would like to 24 incorporate this letter as part of the record. 25 MR. GROSS: I just want to respond to that IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 19 1 one point. Our approval subjects the mitigation plan 2 being approved and the zoning ordinance now provided 3 has to be approved by the Commission. So, the 4 Commission sets the policy then they are going to 5 review the mitigation and they can't build this and get 6 a permit without the Commission being satisfied with 7 mitigation the plans, so, I guess, you can make your 8 argument to them at that time. 9 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I understand that and I will 10 make my argument to them but I want you all to 11 understand the issue as a matter of policy because 12 currently under your criteria it talks about 13 consistency with the comprehensive plan and it also 14 talks about not only consistency with the comprehensive 15 plan but interestingly one of your other criteria has 16 to do with sanitary sewers and-- let me stay with the 17 traffic issue before I get to the sanitary sewers. 18 On the traffic issue, there is one thing 19 that I want to convey to you all that goes beyond this 20 application really as a matter of policy. The Code 21 provides that if the level of service is not being 22 met--"If the level of service is being met, you can 23 enter a development agreement which is under 2232D, 24 that is, if there is a determination available 25 capacity. If there is an action upon failure to show IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 20 1 available capacity, a project owner or developer may 2 provide the necessary improvements to maintain the 3 level of service. In such case, the application shall 4 include appropriate plans for improvement, 5 documentations that such improvements are designed to 6 provide the capacity necessary to achieve or maintain 7 the level of service and recordable instruments 8 approved by the City guaranteeing the construction 9 consistent with the calculations above." The next 10 paragraph goes on to say, "The burden of showing 11 compliance is on the developer. In order to be 12 approvable, applications for development approval, 13 which includes DRB approval shall provide sufficient 14 information showing compliance." The problem that I see 15 with Dean's recommendation is really inherent to all of 16 growth management and one of the things that growth 17 management tries to provide public participation in the 18 process. What you cannot do is, your Code says one 19 thing, staff cannot now delegate to staff the 20 responsibility of the concurrency determination and 21 subsequently after this Board either approves or 22 denies-- let's assume it is going to have an approval-- 23 there is a mitigation plan that has not been approved 24 by FDOT, which has not been executed in the form of a 25 recordable development agreement that says the duration IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 21 1 of time in terms of the improvements, et cetera and for 2 staff, then, to negotiate what these improvements are 3 going to be that are supposed to ensure that we are 4 going to meet the adopted level of service and, then, 5 staff is going to make a recommendation to the 6 Commission that does not form a part of a public 7 hearing because the way Commissioner Leeman's 8 (phonetic) resolution reads is that there be a report 9 to the Commission and that they accept the mitigation 10 plan but there is nothing to state that that is 11 actually a public hearing. So, by bifurcating the 12 process you are, in effect, leaving out the public 13 from-- you are depriving them of the ability of their 14 point of entry relative to the concurrency issue. Let 15 me show you as a practical example how the public is 16 adversely affected. You now approve the DRB or let's 17 say the Commission approves this application, we have 18 30 days to file a verified complaint alleging that the 19 application is inconsistent from a level of service 20 standpoint. It is conceivable that they will not apply 21 for the building permit within that 30 day period, they 22 are going to be outside of the outside 30 days. 23 Arguably, we have lost the right under the verified 24 complaint. There is a problem with the timing. The 25 building permit doesn't have to be pulled for another IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 22 1 year but we have to file our verified complaint 2 challenging it based on inconsistency within 30 days 3 after the final development order of the Commission. 4 So, that is an issue and I am sorry to burden you with 5 the issue this late in the evening but I do need to 6 make the comments for the record because it is a very 7 important public policy issue and I know that the 8 Commission has spoken to the issue on 20 Venetian and I 9 guarantee you we will speak to the issue again relative 10 to Dean's opinion that that is an issue that can be 11 delegated to staff to negotiate with the public having 12 no point of entry relative to the concurrency issue. 13 MR. GROSS: I am sure that the Commission 14 intends to take public comments at the time that they 15 hear the mitigation plan. 16 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I appreciate that, I just 17 need to make the record, Mr. Chairman. 18 We have addressed the traffic on the storm 19 drainage. The draft recommendation says that 20 concurrency is not satisfied relative to storm water. 21 It is my understanding from the neighbors in the area 22 that there is fairly consistent flooding in the area. 23 There is a level of service relative to storm 24 drainage. The initial draft recommendation says it is 25 not satisfied. The new recommendation says it is but IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 23 1 there is nothing in the record to reflect a concurency 2 determination relative to storm water drainage other 3 than the revised recommendation reflecting that it has 4 been satisfied. There is no calculations. There is 5 nothing to confirm that indeed the adopted level of 6 service is being met and I don't know of any storm 7 water drainage improvements that have taken place since 8 the draft recommendation was prepared. 9 MR. GROSS: Let's see if there is a comment 10 on that. Do you have one? 11 MR. MOONEY: We recommend that that become 12 satisfied. 13 MR. GROSS: So, you reviewed the evidence? 14 MR. MOONEY: And we determined that this 15 project will meet concurrence in term of storm 16 drainage. 17 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Finally, I will note that 18 staff's final recommendation does again raise the lssue 19 regarding their concern regarding the structure 20 relative to the southwest corner of the property and 21 its impact on the vistas to Biscayne from Dade 22 Boulevard not only relative to West Bay Plaza 23 Condominium Association but for the public in general 24 and then backs up a little bit and says, "Well, they 25 have actually made some substantial changes," but one IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 24 1 of the conditions, is condition E. One of the 2 conditions to the approval or favorable recommendation 3 would still be, "That the southwest corner shall to the 4 greatest extent possible incorporate an expanded view 5 corridor in a matter to be approved by staff." To the 6 greatest extent possible it is, basically, the watered 7 down version that we got the last time which was: Is 8 it feasible for the developer? Of course, the developer 9 came in and said it was not feasible. Loping off four 10 apartment units and two parking spaces for the benefit 11 of the community at large and the residents whose views 12 are going to be obstructed is not feasible from an 13 economic standpoint, but in the balance of things we, 14 certainly, believe that it should be feasible. 15 Finally, I would like to incorporate into 16 the record by reference File 9188, which is 20 17 Venetian, File No. 8938 which is essentially this same 18 application in its different manifestation of 19 residential, the Board of Adjustment file, which is 20 2583 where incidentally the variances were denied 21 unanimously. There was one outspoken member of the 22 Board of Adjustment but it was with unanimity that the 23 Board of Adjustment denied the variance request. 24 The entire plan including the modifications 25 to the 1994 amendment to the year 2000 the year report IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 25 1 that has been presented to the Commission and also 2 Dean's February 24th concurrency determination. There 3 are some neighbors that would like to make some 4 comments. We would urge you-- we think, with all due 5 respect to the applicant, that it is rea~ly playing 6 with the process to come back with an application which 7 is in essence the same exact application and calling it 8 something else. When in fact, we all know that it is 9 the same application and the numbers bear that out. We 10 would urge you to, based on the comments and the 11 general thread of your comments relative to other 12 projects that were blocking view corridors earlier 13 today, I think for purposes of consistency we would 14 urge you to deny this application. 15 MR. WORTH: Just for me to understand, so in 16 a perfect world for you, you would like this last 17 little segment of the building either eliminated or 18 added to the top. Would that make things perfect for 19 you? 20 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Mr. Worth, we would like to, 21 I think, there are two issues. One is the level of 22 service issue and there are some residents that will 23 testify relative to the accidents that have been 24 occurring on Dade Boulevard, et cetera, and the fact 25 that there is a deficient level of service and if we IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 26 1 had an executed development agreement that was 2 consistent with Chapter 163 where they talk about 3 relative to their development agreements the ones that 4 are actually sanctioned by 163. 5 MR. WORTH: I know. You are talking about 6 the view, let's cut to it. 7 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Two things, we are talking 8 about the view provided; however, that the levels-- in 9 other words, if we did not have a level of service 10 deficiency, then, we would only have the view argument. 11 Now, we are concerned about both. 12 MR. GROSS: The City has stipulated in the 13 staff report that the level of service does not meet 14 the concurency at this time, so, I think, although I am 15 happy to hear from the residents, we don't need 16 extensive testimony on that because it is not 17 controverted on the record. 18 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I guess, my point is that 19 you should not be approving this application because it 20 is a developmental approval until you have a mitigation 21 plan in executable form or a development plan in 22 executable and recordable form. 23 MR. GROSS: You have made that point. That is 24 not the advice we are getting from the head of the 25 Planning and Zoning department. IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 27 1 MR. ECHEMENDIA: That is one oplnlon. 2 MR. GROSS: Comments from the public? 3 MS. BENSON: My name is Annette Benson and I 4 live at 5660 Collins Avenue. 5 For 23 years I lived on Dilido Island and 6 know practically every inch of this area, probably 7 better than I wish I would because it to so long of 8 those 23 years. I will, again, repeat that you really 9 have no business even considering this application this 10 evening because you are supposed to have an approved 11 traffic plan attached to the application. This was 12 discussed by John Shubin (phonetic) in the 20 venetian 13 Way matter. The City Commission brought it and 14 unanimously overturned your decision to approve 20 15 venetian way. If level of service is unacceptable now 16 there is no way that you can approve this based on: 17 Well, maybe it is going to be approved or mitigated 18 later. There is a question here of accumulated effect, 19 accumulated rather than cumulative. You are talking 20 about this project as if it exists in isolation. You 21 have Sunset Harbor, you have Publix across the street. 22 Sunset Harbor is not completely finished. Publix is 23 not even open yet. You have the 20 Ventian Way thing 24 that is unresolved. You have 17th Street and Alton 25 Road that is unresolved. You have North Bay Road IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 28 1 people who are trying to ask you to close off their 2 road from 17th to 32nd Street. You have to talk about 3 the surrounding area in relationship to this very 4 important project on Dade Boulevard. 5 Dade Boulevard, Venetian Causeway is a 6 major, major artery. Hurricane evacuation has not even 7 been discussed or in times of another or possibly 8 unforeseen disastrous occurrence. What I understood 9 when we defeated a lot of the schemes on Dade Boulevard 10 was that residents of Venetian Causeway and Dade 11 Boulevard are not permitted to head west in hurricane 12 evacuation time but must join the mob going north to 13 41st Street and the Julia Tuttle Causeway. 14 This project has to be reconsidered by you 15 in relationship to people who want to have input and 16 deserve to have input. John Shubin read into the 17 record before the City Commission that part of the 18 zoning code that requires you to have an attached 19 approved traffic analysis before you even tackle the 20 problem at all. I urge you to adhere to that because 21 that is where the public has its point of entry and 22 since there are about 1450 or more apartments on Bell 23 Isle and something like 450 single units on Venetian 24 Causeway's single residential areas, you have thousands 25 of people there who need to have an opportunity to IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 29 1 speak to traffic and to other matters of concurrency, 2 so I do urge you to realize that you can't treat this 3 project as it is just a single problem. 4 MR. GROSS: Let me ask you why do you feel 5 that the issue of the Commission considering the 6 mitigation plan later any different than Zoning Board 7 considering variance requests in terms of the process. 8 I mean, we don't hear the zoning variance here. 9 MS. BENSON: This is a public hearing. 10 MR. GROSS: So is the zoning board, so is the 11 commission meeting. 12 MS. BENSON: But, first it is you. 13 MR. GROSS: We don't consider zoning. It 14 goes to the Zoning Board and what they are saying is 15 that the mitigation plan goes to the Commission. 16 MR. ECHEMENDIA: It is not a public hearing. 17 MR. GROSS: It will be a public hearing. 18 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Not according to Diana. The 19 item as per the resolution is a report from staff. It 20 is not actually a public hearing item. That is the 21 whole problem in terms of procedural due process. 22 MR. GROSS: I would submit to you that that 23 is what the Commission seems to be indicating. They 24 amended the zoning ordinance to provide that the 25 mitigation plan comes to them and that it is being IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 30 1 reviewed by them and we were told by Dean that we are 2 not the reviewers, it is supposed to be done by the 3 Commission. Are we supposed to say "No. We are going 4 to overrule the Commission"? Are we going to say that 5 we are going to review it instead of the Commission? I 6 don't think so. 7 MS. BENSON: The density, over density it is 8 a reason. Over density, meaning that it is related to 9 the level of service. It can mean that the project has 10 turned it down. 11 MR. GROSS: They can't get a building permit 12 unless they get a mitigation plan. 13 MS. BENSON: But at what point lS your input 14 a reflection? 15 MR. GROSS: It is not our input. 16 MS. BENSON: Who told you? 17 MR. GROSS: You were here. Dean said it. 18 MS. BENSON: Then, I disagree with him and 19 further in the interest of time, I want the record to 20 reflect that in the interest of time, I will not repeat 21 what the previous speaker has given to you as a record 22 but I, certainly, support it. I know this area better 23 than anybody else in town including Dean, I am sure. 24 MR. GROSS: Any other comments from the 25 public? IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 31 1 MS. MURPHY: I am Paul Murphy with Pacific 2 International. We are currently developing the 500 3 units just to the north of this property. It just so 4 happens that we also paid for the infrastructure along 5 the entire two blocks of Purdy Avenue. We have seen 6 this project for the last year-and-a-half. We 7 vigorously support it and we are happy that somebody 8 else can take advantage of the infrastructure that we 9 put in. 10 As far as concurrency goes, I would 11 guesstimate that less than 20 to 25 of the projects 12 that are approved go to the department, so it is almost 13 a moot point to try to figure out the concurrency for 14 water, sewer, pavement, drainage et cetera, when most 15 of these projects won't even be built, so it is moot at 16 this time. Thank you very much. 17 MR. GROSS: Building permit 18 MR. MURPHY: You have to. I mean, as a 19 developer unless you know that your project is going to 20 go forth what is the point of getting permission to 21 build all this stuff and come up with a mitigation 22 plan? That is the time where you really have to figure 23 it out. 24 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Mr. Chairman, if I can just 25 ask him a question. IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 32 1 Do you understand that when there is a DRB 2 approval there is a soft concurrency reservation? 3 MR. MURPHY: Sure. 4 MR. ECHEMENDIA: So, it does have in fact -- 5 MR. MURPHY: It is a soft concurrency. It is 6 not a hard concurrency. 7 MR. ECHEMENDIA: There is a reservation that 8 takes place-- in terms of availability to other folks, 9 so there is a consequence relative to this Board's 10 finding. 11 MR. GROSS: I don't think you need to 12 cross-examine him. He is just a citizen that came 13 forward to testify. 14 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I understand. Mr. Chairman, 15 I have the right to ask questions of all the citizens 16 here. 17 MR. GROSS: I don't think that is true. I 18 don't think you have the right to cross-examine every 19 citizen that wants to make a comment. 20 MR. ECHEMENDIA: With all due respect, if you 21 don't give me that right, then, I have another basis to 22 appeal based on lack of procedural due process. I will 23 defer to Diana. 24 MR. GROSS: You can direct any question you 25 want to the Chair but you don't have the right-- and IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 33 1 Diane can correct me if I am wrong-- to cross-examine 2 every citizen that stands up to make a comment. 3 MS. GRUB: Our policy procedures do provide 4 for expert testimony and cross-examination, but, 5 clearly, that has to be within the reasonable scope. 6 MR. GROSS: He is not testifying as an 7 expert. 8 MR. ECHEMENDIA: I know. He doesn't have to 9 be and I won't ask him any questions. 10 MR. GROSS: Okay. Any other input from the 11 public? 12 MR. FINEY: My name is Paul Finey and I 13 reside at 1688 West Avenue, Apartment 1101. I am here 14 to state that I object to the project there not only 15 because I don't think that the design fits. I don't 16 think that a canyon effect there would be appropriate. 17 I agree with everything that our attorney for the 18 association has stated. Additionally, I would like to 19 say and I will make it as short as possible, just to 20 make these points. 21 Concurrency and traffic congestion problems 22 there need to be resolved before any permit is 23 approved. The traffic congestion at the intersection 24 of 17th Street and Bay Road and Dade Boulevard is 25 probably the worst intersection in Miami Beach with IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 34 1 frequent auto accidents. I see them all the time. I 2 live there. I hear the screeching tires. I hear the 3 crashing cars. I hear the sirens coming. I see the 4 people out there screaming and crying. 5 MR. GROSS: You understand that the 6 concurrency will be resolved before a permit is issued. 7 MR. FINEY: Yes, but I want to make a point 8 here. It is only a matter of time before a traffic 9 accident victim sues the City of Miami Beach for 10 negligence for not resolving the traffic concurrency 11 problems at this intersection. I don't understand why 12 you don't-- I would just like to point out, I guess, 13 you probably know about the master plan that the 14 section that the third alternative, which I believe was 15 the recommended alternative, is to have a ramp through 16 there off of West Avenue and if that is put in there 17 that would solve the traffic problems. Unfortunately, 18 it traverses the property which would preclude any 19 project being built. 20 What we need there is a traffic ramp similar 21 to the one at Alton Road that comes off the MacArthur 22 Causeway and beyond that I just think it behooves the 23 City of Miami Beach to consider that before they 24 approve any other permits. The City of Miami Beach is 25 potentially going to be named in a lawsuit by one of IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 35 1 these traffic accident victims there because the 2 concurrency has not been resolved and this is through 3 the negligence of the City of Miami Beach in my 4 opinion. Thank you. 5 MR. GROSS: What floor do you live on? 6 MR. FINEY: 1101. 7 MR. GROSS: And, you believe that from the 8 11th floor of your apartment that the view is going to 9 be substantially different if a little piece of the 10 corner is taken off? 11 MR. FINEY: It is not going to bother my 12 view. I am not doing this because-- I am not up here 13 talking because it is going to obstruct my view. 14 MR. GROSS: That is the impression I get from 15 your lawyer, is that it is going to affect your view 16 and that of the other people. 17 MR. FINEY: It is really a bad problem, the 18 traffic there. 19 MR. GROSS: Not the traffic. I am just 20 talking about the view corridor. Whose view corridor 21 is it that is being obstructed if it is not yours? 22 MR. FINEY: Well, the residents there, the 23 people driving in and out along the scenic Venetian 24 Causeway, tourists or people who live there. It will 25 be like a canyon and you know we don't need that. There IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 36 1 is a park across the street and that is the nature of 2 the area; it is nice and wide open. We don't need any 3 huge blocks of buildings put there that don't fit. 4 MR. GROSS: Okay. Thank you very much. 5 MR. ROTHSTIEN: My name is Henry Rothstien. 6 I live at 635 Euclid, #116. I am formally a resident 7 of a unit in this building. I am in the real estate 8 business. 9 This seems to me to be a fairly reasonable 10 compromise because I have talked to some of the people lIon each side and originally there was a tall building, 12 this is shorter. I think your focus is on the view 13 corridor and my single issue is the view because I am 14 going to be living on Bell Isle shortly and as a 15 result, it would seem to me that what you have come up 16 with and what the City has come up with and what the 17 staff has come up with is a reasonably fair 18 compromise. All considering for the developer and, I 19 think, I am trying to suggest that I support what you 20 are striking as a compromise. 21 MR. GROSS: Thank you. Any other comments? 22 Board comment? 23 MR. MARCUS: I must say that after listening 24 to all the comments and the concerns here, I do have a 25 concern for this project that the applicant is asking IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 37 1 for variances on at least three sides. 2 MS. DOUGHERTY: We are not asking for any 3 variances on this project. 4 MR. MARCUS: On page two. 5 MS. DOUGHERTY: Those variances is if it is 6 residential. We don't need any variances because it a 7 totally commercial, it is an office project. 8 MR. ECHEMENDIA: They are not getting 9 variances because it is less than 25 percent 10 commercial. They are going to request the variances 11 after they get the blessing from you all. 12 MR. GROSS: The main issue is, is there 13 anyway to ensure that they actually use it the way they 14 say they are going to use it. 15 MR. MOONEY: They will not be able to get a 16 certificate of occupancy if the floor plans are not 17 constructed in accordance with the plans that are 18 approved. In other words, if you approve a commercial 19 project or a project that does not consist of more than 20 25 percent residential, they will have to construct the 21 project in accordance with that. 22 MR. GROSS: That is not my point. My point 23 is the other 75 percent, there are saying is going to 24 be used for office. 25 MR. MOONEY: You can't have a residential IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 38 1 unit without kitchens and they can't have kitchens in a 2 commercial project. 3 MR. GROSS: Okay. Fine. That is a condition 4 that is there. There can't be kitchens in those units 5 unless they try to go to the Zoning Board to get a 6 variance for the residential piece, right? 7 MS. GRUB: If they did have kitchens that 8 would be a violation of the code. 9 MR. GROSS: Most offices have kitchens. I 10 have a kitchen in my office. 11 MR. MOONEY: You can probably make the 12 argument that they could put a kitchen in an office but 13 at some point staff is going to have to make a 14 determination as to whether or not that will constitute 15 a residential. If they are proposing a small 16 kitchenette within a larger office and that office does 17 not have clear partitions and individual bathrooms that 18 is one thing but if they are proposing what clearly is 19 a residential floor plan and they are calling it an 20 office, that is going to be a problem. 21 MR. GROSS: That is what I want to avoid. 22 MR. MARCUS: Who is going to patrol this 23 after the C.O. is given? 24 MR. MOONEY: It is up to the zoning staff to 25 make sure that the floor plan will suffice as a IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 39 1 commercial floor plan and afterwards-- well, In terms 2 of the C.O. they are not supposed to or they are not 3 allowed to alter the interior of those plans without 4 first getting a zoning sign off. 5 Now, who is going to stop anybody from doing 6 that. They can get approved for big box retail on the 7 site and then in the middle of the night on Sunday 8 night start putting in illegal partitions bathrooms and 9 kitchens and everything. You can only do so much. 10 MS. DOUGHERTY: Well, this was going to be a 11 condo project but you can't certainly sell any condos 12 because no one is going to buy them because you can't 13 get a certificate of use or occupancy. 14 MR. GROSS: I have to say also now our code 15 enforcement department they have become extremely 16 vigilant of late and I am sure if there are violations 17 out there they will find them. 18 MS. GRUB: Correct me if I am wrong, I think 19 the state now requires condominiums to get a zoning 20 sign off. 21 MR. MOONEY: Also for financing the bank will 22 not close on the condominium until there is a 23 certificate of occupancy issued. 24 MR. GROSS: That is not true. 25 MR. MOONEY: For a lot of residential units IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 40 1 we have had that happen to us where the bank will not 2 close on a property until the C.O. is issued. 3 MR. GROSS: Not only is that not true but the 4 City of Miami Beach which used to issue individual 5 C.O.s for units, is not even in the habit of doing 6 that. I should say for conversions though, which they 7 used to do, I guess. 8 We've had all the testimony and we've had 9 board comments 10 MS. DOUGHERTY: They have made reference to 11 many staff reports. I would like to make sure that the 12 transcript as well as the order of those hearings are 13 also in the record. 14 MR. WORTH: In an effort to suggest something 15 to resolve this, would the applicant consider taking 16 that last segment of the building that is in the far 17 corner and just putting it on as an extra story? 18 MS. DOUGHERTY: It is a very good question 19 and it is something we did consider and it is an 20 impossibility. I will let James explain to you why. 21 It has to do with the number of floor elevators. 22 MR. MACKENZIE: This question came up on June 23 3rd when this project was approved. If you notice 24 there are a set-- one elevator and a set of stairs for 25 each pair of built environment here and here. What IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 41 1 that means is and you will see in this section. This 2 is the level of exit discharge from a fire. The South 3 Florida Building Code requires you that you cannot have 4 a single means of egress out of a unit unless you meet 5 certain criteria. That criteria being, one of them, 6 that you do exceed more than four floors in height from 7 the level of exit discharge and number two that you 8 don't not exceed the number of units that are serviced 9 by this particular means of egress. 10 MR. MARCUS: Does that increase your lack of 11 egress? 12 MR. MACKENZIE: No, it doesn't. The only way 13 you can have a single means of egress is if you meet 14 those criteria of not being more than four levels above 15 the exit discharge level and if you are not serving 16 more than four units. To eliminate one building or a 17 half of a building would, essentially, make us violate 18 that rulei therefore, calling for a complete 19 redesigning of the project. 20 I would like to bring up a point at this 21 time. Originally, this project because it is in a CD2 22 area and being a mixed use project, there was lack of 23 clarity in between the zoning ordinance and the 24 comprehensive plan. According to the zoning ordinance 25 we would have been allowed as a mixed use project in IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 42 1 the CD2 area at 2.2 F.A.R which we originally designed 2 this project to be because that conflicted with the 3 comprehensive, we were restricted by the comprehensive 4 to only be at 2.0; therefore, creating a handicap on 5 the development by .25. That is why we resorted to 6 somewhat of a creative way to try to make the project 7 economically feasible. 8 MR. GROSS: I would like to point out that 9 the other application that they have pending in front 10 of the Board, which we continued on the same site, is 11 for a 16 story building that is as of right which they 12 don't want to build. I think this trade off in terms 13 of height, number of storys, view corridors all things 14 considered, I think, we are better off with the shorter 15 building. 16 MR. WORTH: I do too. I just wondered if 17 there was any way that those desires could be 18 accommodated. For myself I am very concerned in 19 general of view corridors that is what I objected of 20 the West Avenue project and the Carillon but there was 21 a difference there and those are view corridors that I 22 consider go for miles around and, in fact, really the 23 whole community. I just see this as a thorny issue. 24 What we are really talking about is something that 25 affects the units of one building, really. IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 43 1 MR. GROSS: They are saying it is not even 2 their units. He is saying it is the people driving 3 down the street. 4 MR. WORTH: I drove down that and for me that 5 lS not a problem. I mean I drove down that street and 6 went around the block-- it is just not a big deal. The 7 MacArthur Causeway and the West Avenue project when 8 that comes back, that will be a big deal to me, the 9 Carillon will be, this one isn't. 10 MR. GROSS: Do you want to make a motion? 11 MR. DUANY: Just a technical issue. I had 12 the occassion to actually do an urban academic study In 13 your area and what happens is that for quite a length 14 of time we studied pedestrians and skating and walking 15 and jogging on the Venetian Causeway and it is 16 surprisingly high. The harshest part of the journey lS 17 pretty much where your lot is. 18 I mean, it is a pretty building because 19 support among other things because it gives support to 20 this sort of chaotic area called Dade Boulevard but the 21 trees that you have chosen are in adequate. Travellers 22 tree if it is not a White Bird of Paradise it tends to 23 rip off. Green Buttonwood, it is an inadequate shade 24 canopy tree. I applaud your set back because it allows 25 large trees to occur. It is happening on the wrong IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 44 1 side. When you have a situation like Dade Boulevard 2 you want the plants on the outside but I imagine that 3 is no longer a consideration and the plan has already 4 been executed; is that correct? Is your sidewalk area 5 built? 6 MR. MACKENZIE: There is an existing five 7 foot sidewalk. 8 MR. DUANY: Up to the curb, right? 9 MR. MACKENZIE: Yes. 10 MR. GROSS: So you are saying you would 11 rather see it in the sidewalk? 12 MR. DUANY: On the outside. I like the way 13 you buffered the activity from an unpleasant street as 14 that is. In your case, if you haven't built the 15 sidewalk yet, I would put the planting strip there and 16 then on the other side also. 17 MR. GROSS: That would be the public right of 18 way that you talking about? 19 MR. DUANY: But, basically, I think __ 20 MR. SAUL: Tom, Douglas is saying that he 21 thinks the trees would work better in the public right 22 of way. 23 MR. MOONEY: The only problem with that is 24 this is, you have got a narrow sidewalk and we tried to 25 get them to look at the possibility of slightly IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 45 1 widening that sidewalk. You can introduce them, but we 2 felt that it was much better to have the trees within 3 the private property. 4 MR. DUANY: Not that much on the south side 5 because but on the west side. 6 MR. MOONEY: Certainly, on the west side I 7 would not have a problem. 8 MR. DUANY: I would very much like to see a 9 tree planting strip on the west side. I wouldn't mind 10 seeing trees on that green right in front of the 11 building. 12 MR. MACKENZIE: That median is planted. 13 MR. MOONEY: We have a condition in here No. 14 2C it says, "All species of trees selected for planting 15 on Dade Boulevard, Purdy Avenue and Bay Road shall be 16 In accordance with the Miami Beach Master Street Plan." 17 MR. DUANY: I know, but I have had occasion 18 to advise Miami Beach on their tree planting. It is 19 one of the more deficient areas in South Florida by the 20 way, and I would hate to see Green Buttonwood when we 21 can have canopies. This is an urban issue. It has 22 very much to do with context and I keep on seeing-- 23 does everybody know what a Green Buttonwood looks like? 24 You can go to South Pointe and see them. They are 25 about the most inadequate tree that you can possibly IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 46 1 put on a street. I would define it as an urban tree. 2 In other words, a large canopy, fairly tough, and high 3 canopy. More than twenty species can actually fit the 4 category and I would replace the Green Buttonwood and 5 add several more for the south elevation. I would like 6 to add that as a condition. 7 MR. MOONEY: On the west side fronting Purdy 8 Avenue? 9 MR. DUANY: Yes. I can live with two on each 10 side and three on the south side. 11 MR. MOONEY: I have to tell you that whatever 12 trees go in there will have to be in accordance with 13 the Master Street Tree Planting Plan. I can put this 14 in the condition but I will tell you what goes out 15 there will have to be in accordance with it. You can 16 suggest it but the Public Works Department will not 17 approve anything but what has been approved in the 18 master plan I can put it in there but I don't know. 19 MR. DUANY: I am not telling them what 20 species. 21 MR. MOONEY: It doesn't matter. 22 MR. DUANY: All I am saying is that 23 Buttonwood does not qualify. 24 MR. MOONEY: Okay. 25 MR. DUANY: It is a minor issue. IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 1 MR. MOONEY: I understand. 2 MR. GROSS: Do we want to make a motion? 3 MR. QUINTANA: Motion to approve. 4 MR. GROSS: We have a motion to approve 5 subject to the staff conditions as have just been 6 amended. 7 Are you in agreement with staff conditions? 8 MR. MACKENZIE: We think we can meet with 9 staff and come up with a solution. 10 MR. TOUZET: I will second with an amendment 11 that the color pallet be reviewed. I think the last 12 time we had discussed the color pallet a little bit. 13 MR. MOONEY: That is in there. We have that 14 as a condition. 15 MR. GROSS: All in favor of the motion to 16 approve respond by saying I. 17 (Thereupon, the Board voted unanimously to 18 approve the motion and the proceedings were concluded.) 19 IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 1 CERTIFICATE 48 5 I, Maribel Garcia, Shorthand Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 6 stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA: SS. 4 COUNTY OF DADE: 7 8 Dated this 13th day 'of March, 1998. 1 l Gr.. Marib 1 Garcia Notary Public at 9 /- f' I \ , - ......-.....,,'- IVY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. (305) 948-6370 (~Ic : (I;~ I~,_ I Large. . , ":'1l .~ i j C"tu' ! :'I.