Loading...
LTC 012-2008 Commission Agenda R7A-DRB Appeal Scott Rakow~' M I AM I B EAC H ~°~$ ~~~ ~ 4 p~, ~~ ~2 f OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER NO. LTC # oil-loos LETTER TO COMMISSION TO: Mayor Matti H. Bower and Members of the City Co fission FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager DATE: January 14, 2008 SUBJECT: Commission Agenda Item R7A -DRB Appeal -Scott Rakow Youth Center Pursuant to City Code Section 118-262 (a) " ..............A full verbatim transcript of all proceedings which are the subject of the appeal shall be provided by the party filing the petition, along with a written statement identifying those specific portions of the transcript upon which the party filing it will rely for purposes of the appeal. The verbatim transcript and written statement, or if represented by legal counsel, appropriate legal briefs, shall be filed no later than two weeks prior to the first scheduled public hearing to consider the appeal." In accordance with section 118-262 (a) a full verbatim transcript was submitted to the City on December 19, 2007. The written statement is provided in the January 16, 2008 City Commission Agenda, item R7A. Attached for review is a copy of the transcript. C:1cm\Scott Rakow DRB appeal.doc Page 1 of 60 City of Miami Beach DRB 10/2/07 SCOTT RAKOW AGENDA ITEM MBTV77 SPEAKER: This is the Arrabee file, number 2042700 Sheridan Avenue, the Scott Rakow Youth Center. The applicant, the City of Miami Beach, is requesting revisions to a previously issued design review approval for the partial renovation of the existing structure, including the construction of the new single-story entrance addition and a new single-story golf starter structure, a new parking lot, and a new outdoor play area. In this particular application -- or request for revisions, the applicant, the City, is requesting to modify the shape and location of the previously approved outdoor play area. The project was approved by the board last month, on September 4th, 2007, with the explicit condition that the outdoor play area be redesigned to incorporate an L shape. However, as we've stated at that meeting and in this file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 2 of 60 report, there was a significant amount of community consensus with regard to the play area designed as submitted. So therefore the City is requesting that the DRB reconsider this one condition and revise the final order in order to allow for the play area to be as previously f' presented. The city manager is here, would like to address the board with regard to this specific issue. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Before we go forward, I need to disclose that after the last DRB hearing, I attended a meeting at the president of the Bay Shore Homeowners' Association home, which included several neighbors of the Bay Shore community, and we discussed what had transpired that day at the DRB hearing. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning. It's not often that I come before this board, so I want to, first of all, thank you for all that you do for the City of Miami Beach. For the record, my name is George Gonzalez. I'm the city manager, and I come here with a pretty unique or extraordinary request. I appreciate the work that you did last -- at your last meeting in dealing with the Scott Rakow Youth Center. As you probably know, the Scott Rakow Youth Center is a -- a project that the city has been involved with for several file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 3 of 60 years now. We've completed phase one. We've expanded, and there is a phase two renovation that is contemplated as well. I've spent a lot of my time trying to secure the funding necessary to fully fund the improvements. One of the aspects of the renovation and improvements that we're trying to accomplish is fairly inexpensive and modest improvement, but one that has garnered a pretty significant amount of interest among the residents nearby, and that is to afford the children that use the youth center an outdoor play area. It's a pretty simple situation. We -- we live in South Florida, which certainly the land of sunshine and good -- a community spirit, and what we're looking for is an opportunity to give those kids who are at the youth center an opportunity to play outside as well inside. The inside will be, once completed, a very, very nice youth center for all who come, whether it's after school or on the weekends or in their clubs or programs or the like. But as -- as you know, our community has grown, particularly as it relates to our children. Our average age has dropped dramatically to where we're now at about a 39 year old is the average age of a resident of file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1/l 4/2008 Page 4 of 60 Miami Beach. And that over the last 10 or 15 years has dropped since -- when was it -- about 65. So it doesn't happen without having a lot of young kids. And what we're trying to accomplish is giving the children an opportunity to play outside. The reality of the situation is that they play outside today anyway. That's -- let's be frank. The -- the youth center operates an outdoor component that is basically using some unclaimed grass area right now. The par 3 golf course, which is the area that shares or abuts the youth center, is a valuable and important green space to this community. And the immediate residents in the Bay Shore neighborhood have really been very vigilant in making sure that the par 3 golf course is a resource that is retained by Miami Beach and its community. And so we intend to do that. In going through this process, we spent many, many, many months, if not years, working with the residents to reach a compromise that gave the -- the kids the space we were looking for and also retained the interest of -- of the par 3 golf course as a functional and usable U nine hole, par three. We had reached a compromise. Unfortunately, at your last meeting, whether it was a mixup or it -- it perhaps got to you file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 5 of 60 prematurely or whatnot, but the end result was that the residents were not here in adequate force to kind of explain their -- their side of the story. When we left DRB last month, we ended up with something other than what the compromise was. And I -- you know, reached out to the residents immediately and said, listen, we -- we as an organization, as a city, are committed to the compromis that we reached. I think that it's an appropriate thing that we accomplished. Is it the ideal solution? I would tell you no. I think what you've approved is in fact what originally we were looking to accomplish. However, as you know, when you go through and try to redesign and make sure you get to a compromise that everybody can live with, sometimes consensus is not ideal, and sometimes consensus is not unanimous. And so what we tried to achieve is the best possible solution for all involved, which is -- I am not sure you're looking at the -- oh, okay. They're both up there. So the board closest to you -- closest to me here is what we're asking you to reconsider, which is rectangular-shaped play field that is adjacent to the youth center and to the parking lot that would be expanded as part of the renovation. From an operational perspective, again, it file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O l /14/2008 Page 6 of 60 is not the ideal solution, but it is certainly a very workable solution and something that we're committed to make functional use of. I am sure there is some residents here who -- who would like to come up, if they're interested on speaking on -- on their behalf. I'm not looking to speak on their behalf. But I think they will hopefully acknowledge that the city has worked in good faith to try to accomplish a reasonable outcome that will satisfy everybody's needs. And that's why I'm here today, is to tell you, I respectfully request to you that you reconsider your decision and go back to that reasonable outcome compromise that I think everybody was pretty much satisfied with prior to your last meeting. SPEAKER: Mr. Gonzalez, we'll listen to anybody from the public who wishes to speak on this. At last month's hearing, we had testimony from a board member who's a landscape architect, represents this kind of thing. He was adamantly opposed to the long rectangular shape from, you know, numerous and well-defended safety issues and other pragmatic issues that comes with planning a -- a park. And -- and so I am curious -- you know, I know you approach this with good faith, and I am sure the residents too, but in light of that testimony, you know, file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 7 of 60 how would we double back, you know, on something that is -- is, you know, when we are thinking about the well-being -- well-being of the children who will, you know, be the end user of -- of this space? MR. GONZALEZ: Let me, just for the record, and make it very, very clear. What we're proposing is not an unsafe circumstance either. Perhaps what the gentleman you're mentioning felt that it was perhaps more safe or more ideal, and I have said that myself. I'll tell you that what you approved is a better -- a more desirable location, but one that will create division and divisiveness in this community, and we're not looking to do that. What is being proposed is a safe structure. We will have it fenced, we will have it gated, and we will have it monitored. At -- at no time during our youth center operation are children out there without supervision anyway. And so whether they're located a little bit to the east or a little bit to the west, a little bit to north or a little bit to the south, they will be supervised by park staff. Now, the other thing is that the location we are talking about now is kind of where they are today. It's generally in the location that we have our -- our soccer clubs or whatever else, in the nearby area. And so is it -- is it file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 8 of 60 an unsafe circumstance? No. I don't think any -- I didn't think we would be here telling you that it was -- if it were unsafe, I don't think we would be sitting here advocating for it. And so my circumstance here now in the effort to honor the commitments we made with the residents, we're asking you to take a look at it again and -- and reconsider. SPEAKER: Can you clarify the compromise issues? And is it -- is it -- is it a compromise in the function of the golf course, or is it some other compromise issues? MR. GONZALEZ: Well, let me try, and then I will go out there and try to point it out to you. The -- the issue of the par 3 golf course is a longstanding issue in this community. It's got a long history dating several years, tens of years, where, in the past, the city made certain decisions that one could question their -- you know, the -- the value or merit of it, but we are well aware we are today. In those decisions, a settlement agreement was achieved between the city and the immediate neighborhood which called for the par 3 golf course to remain a green space/open space. And if it were to be changed in use, then it would require a super majority of the city commission. We've honored that settlement agreement. file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O l /14/2008 Page 9 of 60 We've tried to live by it and keep it a green space/open space, and peacefully coexist between the par 3 and the youth center and the residents. From time to time as we have done construction, whether it's construction at the youth center or, more importantly, construction to the fire stations and the water tanks and everything else that are adjacent, we have temporarily needed to use portions of the par 3 golf course with the always intent of -- at some point, restoring it back to a full nine-hole par 3. The -- the indication that I am getting from the residents is that they -- their interest, their desire, is to continue to -- excuse me -- have a fully functional par 3 golf course. And so what we were trying to accomplish in the -- in this settlement was to try to carve out green space for the youth center to be used without jeopardizing the ultimate use of the par 3 as a fully functional nine hole. So one of the things that has been accomplished is we're -- I don't want to call it a land swap, but we're adding green space to one part of the par 3, and then we're losing some green space to the parking lot on the other side of the par 3. What we're adding is -- and let's see -- the -- the charts won't show it, but if file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O l /14/2008 Page 10 of 60 you are familiar with the area Prairie, as you i head north on Prairie, past the -- the Miami Beach high school, Prairie kind of bears to the right and then splits off, and -- and you can either go right or go straight. And it creates a little triangular area with the street and then a surface lot that's there now that was used for the golf starter shack. What we're proposing to do, and we've already funded, is to reclaim that triangle, that street area and that parking lot, as green space, and make Prairie a straight north T end at 28th Street, where you would then T and either make a left or a right. And we feel that's a very good traffic-calming measure as well. That's a -- one stop sign that we can make a fortune if we positioned our police officers there to -- and encourage the traffic enforcements. But one thing that we do know is that if you have to come to a T stop and make a left or a right, without question you will divert some traffic and you will also calm the traffic. And by doing that, we can reclaim that whole triangle -- triangular green space, plus the street surface, plus the surface parking lot that's there today. And our calculations file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 11 of 60 indicate that we gain, with that, about 26,000 -- 26,500 square feet of green space. What we then lose on green space to expand the current parking lot adjacent to the youth center is about 17,000 square feet. 5o you see a net positive. And then if you go further and say the green space that will now be used for recreational area and not for golf, so to speak, is another 14,000 square feet. So in the end, you basically result in a net positive green space of 2,000 square feet, and -- and that's counting the green space as for recreational space as non-green space area. And of course it is. So from our perspective, we've been able to work with the residents to convince them that, at the end, we can redesign a golf course and we'll still have the full nine hole functioning. We also worked with the resident on improving the youth center design as well. There are some punch-out windows, there is some landscaping and sidewalking that will be added to the north end of the street of the youth center. There were some other improvements that ~i they recommended that we were certainly willing to add and did add. And so the -- the final piece of this was the location of the -- of the green space. And like I said, it's -- you know, it's -- it's not file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01 /14/2008 Page 12 of 60 the ideal location, but it's a location that garnered enough support and consensus among all of the parties involved that we felt it was appropriate to conclude and move forward. And we have been at this for a long time. SPEAKER: But the problem is that you can't configure a nine-hole golf course with the one layout? MR. GONZALEZ: No, I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting that. That -- you can -- I believe you can configure the nine-hole golf course either way. What I am saying is that part of the compromise was to reclaim green space to add green space -- or to expand the parking lot. That's the whole compromise. And so -- SPEAKER: But there's no -- there's no difference in total green space between the two schemes, is there? MR. GONZALEZ: No. That I am aware, no. Li Is there? SPEAKER: So then there is some other issue. MR. GONZALEZ: Which other issue? SPEAKER: There -- there must be some other issue, if it's -- (Talking simultaneously.} MR. GONZALEZ: No, no. What I was answering, I was answering your question: What file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O1 /14/2008 Page 13 of 60 was the -- what were the elements of the compromise? So I kind of tried to give you the whole nutshell quickly. The capture of the green space does not affect either one of these schemes. I'm just commenting on how we've worked on a number of things to try to get a consensus. And so we -- we get to a point where we -- we think we have consensus, and we're hoping that we can move forward. SPEAKER: So both schemes have the same number of green space and open space? MR. GONZALEZ: My understanding is about right. Yeah. Yeah. SPEAKER: And both schemes allow you to produce a fully functioning nine-hole, par 3 f' golf course? MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah. Yes. SPEAKER: Then why one scheme over the other scheme, if one scheme is safer for children -- MR. GONZALEZ: Right. I -- I would -- you know, I'll defer to the residents, if they want to answer that question. I am here telling you that, you know, in good faith, if I reach an agreement and -- and commit the city to something, I am going to try to stick to that agreement. And so I've committed to the one scheme, which is the one the residents prefer, file://D:\SRakowAgenda\ 1206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 14 of 60 and so I am here to tell you that that's something that we would like you to reconsider. SPEAKER: Okay. MR. GONZALEZ: You know, I'm not going to sit here and try to advocate one over the other, the relative merits of one over the other. I can tell you that they -- they both work, but we prefer to honor our commitment. SPEAKER: Let's hear from the public before we get into it. SPEAKER: Would you prefer me here or over here, where you can see me better? SPEAKER: Either one, whichever one you feel more comfortable. If there is a lot of new people here, we should probably re-swear everybody in. Would everyone who plans on testifying please raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? That will do. Thank you. SPEAKER: Okay. My name is Louise Arcaro, and I represent the Bay Shore Homeowners' Association. I haven't been retained for that long, so I haven't been involved in the whole entire process. However, I did watch the entire meeting for September 4th to get a feel. So I am updated on that, and I see there's some very strong opinions of a board member who is not file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 15 of 60 here today. (Inaudible) -- SPEAKER: That's correct. SPEAKER: Just one, I think, important thing to note about in that last meeting: It was not renoticed. You had in the agenda for August 7th that it was going to be renoticed, which it wasn't, which is why the residents were not here. So, provided today you choose to make U the decision based on everything from that meeting and not fully what goes on today, we will appeal that for their due process rights. Let me also clarify some of the discussion that was just had. After that meeting, the assistant city manager met with the homeowners here. There were also people from the Scott Rakow Center. I think it was very well attended, a lot of people in the neighborhood. And the assistant city manager point blank said that this is the Scott Rakow project; this has nothing to do with the par 3 golf course. We are doing this with the land, and any giving back of, say, square footage is not on the table. Period. So that is a change for this meeting which I am sure is appreciated by the residents. But I think that you need to be made aware of that. The settlement agreement that we're talking about is a contract. So actually, any playground is going to be a material breach of file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O l /14/2008 Page 16 of 60 that contract. Okay? The par 3 golf course was supposed to stay intact. So yes, community residents under your city code have the ability, as affected people, to come here and say, we're unhappy with what you're doing, and they can appeal that. But this is different. This is about a breach of that contract. So what they have been doing over a very long period of time is trying to talk with the city and say, you know, we want to help the Scott Rakow Center. We want the children to be safe. We think this is very important for the whole entire community. But don't ask us to give up something and then not return so that we can continue to have the golf course and not be in breach of the agreement. And that has been the sticking issue; that is why this has taken so long, and that is why we are here before you today and they finally hired an attorney, because they were just sick of being told one thing and then turn around and then the other day it's something different. So what we would like to see is something memorialized, even if you had to bifurcate the process, as you were talking about in the last meeting, saying, you know, okay, you had the changes internally to the building, but we weren't satisfied with what went on as far as the playground. I think you guys were very, file.//D:ASRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 17 of 60 very, very adamant about the design of what you wanted. So it doesn't seem to me that today you may not want to change, you know, where you're going with that. I am sure you're going to discuss that. But that's where we're at. If -- if we don't get a change in this agreement, a written change in this agreement that everybody can execute and say, this is what we're going to do for the Scott Rakow, and in exchange, as he mentioned today, in writing that they're going to get another part and change the street, that they're going to give back to the par 3, then this is going to be a breach of contract. SPEAKER: (Inaudible). Hang on for a second. I'm sorry, ma'am. Did -- did you state your name and everything for the record? SPEAKER: I did. Louise Arcaro. SPEAKER: So they have it on the transcript. SPEAKER: And I have, for your attorney, a copy of the settlement agreement -- (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: That's fine. We're going to go with -- you know, we have to operate as a board I under the premises that everything has been handled appropriately and that otherwise it file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 18 of 60 wouldn't make it to us. And not to oversimplify things, but we're here to decide on the big green box, or the little green box on these -- on these two drawings (inaudible) -- MR. GONZALEZ: For the record -- I think it's appropriate for the record. The settlement agreement that exists allows the city to, with a 5 to 7 vote, do whatever it needs to do on that par 3 as long as it remains a green space. We are talking, of course, about a green space. We have never proposed an amendment to the settlement agreement. We've tried to work in consensus with the residents, and I think we had an agreement with the residents. I hope we still do. The -- the issue that has now been introduced, and kind of at a late hour, I think, is trying to tie two projects together that are two very separate projects: One, the phase two expansion of the Scott Rakow Youth Center, and two, the proposed improvements to the par 3 golf course. The city commission has, as of last week, I-I approved a capital budget that includes all the needs funding wise to accomplish the give of land, get of land, the -- what I mentioned, the triangle at -- at the end of the golf course and the parking lot. That was about $750,000 that was added to the project to accomplish that. file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O1 /14/2008 Page 19 of 60 That doesn't need a settlement agreement; it doesn't need a contract. The -- the property owner is the City of Miami Beach, and they are working in good faith and we are working in good faith to accomplish that. A feature project, in our future capital budget, is the potential of restoring the par 3 golf course and improving it. That is something that is in our capital plan. It's a five-year plan. It's not funded as yet, and we hope that we might be able to accomplish that funding at a future year. But at no time are we contemplating trying to make this a bigger project than it is. I mean, right now our focus is the youth center and the green space adjacent to it. The golf course will come later. And so -- you know, there is no breach of contract. There is no requirement for a settlement or an amendment L! to the settlement. I am the sure the residents would desire that, but there is no need for that. And -- you know, we'll proceed with your direction. SPEAKER: So you're saying that the net area of the golf course remains the same? MR. GONZALEZ: The net square footage of green space -- (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: -- the green space for the -- file://D:1SRakowAgenda\ 1206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 20 of 60 this playground area. MR. GONZALEZ: Let me -- let me kind of itemize it for you. The triangle area that is currently in existence, that is, a split between -- I think it's High Tide Boulevard and Prairie, if you're familiar with the area. If we recapture that, that's 26,500 square feet of new add to the -- to the overall park. The Prairie Avenue parking lot that exists there today that used to serve as the starter shack for the par 3 golf course there, is an additional 17,000 square feet. So when you aggregate the two, you're talking about 28,000 square feet of additional green space that today does not exist as part of that park. 1 The expansion of the surface parking lot, off of Pine Tree right adjacent to the youth center, which is the part of the area that we lose green space -- you're building a -- a larger parking lot right now, then what exists would be 15,00 square feet. SPEAKER: It's the same on both plans. MR. GONZALEZ: Exactly. What exists currently today is about half of this space here, presently, on either -- on either drawing. And so what we're proposing as part of the improvement is that you expand your parking lot. This area here is roughly 15,000 square feet, but you're gaining 28,000 square file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 21 of 60 feet up on the western edge. And in either case, we're talking about -- about the same space in the parking lot layout. In this case, I think it's slightly less, because we're trying to take more of the -- a long rectangular box. And so that's what we are trying to tell you, is that from a green space perspective, which is what the settlement agreement calls for, you're talking about no net -- actually, you're talking about a net gain of green space. What -- so from a settlement agreement -1 perspective, there is no breach of contract. There is -- there is no net loss; there is a net gain. Secondarily, the -- the contract or the settlement agreement stipulates and calls for a procedure for how the city could decide to do something else with it. It calls for an extra super majority vote, a 5 to 7 vote. So it's in there and it's allowed. And ultimately, when this project was approved, and ultimately when the contract will come to be awarded by the city commission, the city commission will take the necessary actions it may need to take if it -- if it is required. But there is no breach of contract. So I just wanted to clarify that. You know, that there's -- there's no bad faith, there is no switching, there is no kind of trying to be file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 22 of 60 duplicitous in any way, which some -- some folks may think that. We're simply here trying to solve a solution that says, we need some space for our kids. We want to formalize it so that the kids can play in a safe environment. SPEAKER: Wouldn't you say, then, that -- II sort of on that theme, that either one of these schemes meets your criteria? MR. GONZALEZ: Absolutely. SPEAKER: And therefore meets your commitment? MR. GONZALEZ: It -- yes, it does. It meets our criteria. SPEAKER: I know you said you don't like to go out on your commitment -- MR. GONZALEZ: Right. (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: -- maintaining your commitment essentially takes us out of play, asks us to do a job but not do it. MR. GONZALEZ: It -- I am here to ask you to reconsider your ideal solution for a workable but less beneficial solution. And -- and the reason being is, as part of these discussions, the residents who most closely live along 28th Street and the youth center were concerned about the proximity of the play field to their homes and residences. In an effort to try to be accommodating, we decided to shift it further file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 23 of 60 south, I guess, so that it would stay away from most of the residents. When you see this scheme here, the -- the one I am talking about, you know, the play field is pretty much removed from all of the residential areas. And that's something that, you know, if the residents were saying we were concerned about that, then we were able to accommodate it. I assure you that the first -- the one you guys approved was where we started with. SPEAKER: Correct. MR. GONZALEZ: I mean, that was what we thought would be the least impacting, best solution. But as -- as is the case oftentimes, you try to, you know, work a solution that everybody can live with. And so that's what we were trying to do, that's why we're here today. We didn't have an attorney at the time either, so -- you know -- that's a new element. MS. ARCARO: Can I just respond to some of that? SPEAKER: Of course. We're going to continue with public comment anyway, so -- MS. ARCARO: Okay. First off, you'll note in the terminology, "if we were." Unfortunately, going to the commission after the Design Review Board is not a de novo hearing, so that's why you folks are faced with me today, file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 24 of 60 because what is said today would be the only thing that they would be looking at. And then that would be then appealable to the circuit court by writ of cert. So that is why I'm inflicting this on you, because I do know that you're here about the design. So let me just point out that in the agreement they were talking about the status quo, which means that the municipal par 3 golf course shall remain a municipal par 3 golf course with the same use, size and configuration as currently in effect. So it's not exactly what the city manager just said. SPEAKER: Why don't -- we don't need -- MS. ARCARO: But my point -- my point being that today, if -- if what they have on the table is going to be to add that triangle, we -- we would like to have that in writing from the city, because there have been verbal promises before. And you know, one example is that from one meeting to the next, they added ten feet to -- to this playground. So where they thought that hey had a compromise, it kept getting changed. So that's what we would look for. SPEAKER: So let -- let me just rehash this. The two panels we are faced with today, you're supportive of the -- of the one long rectangle next to the parking lot? file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O l /14/2008 Page 25 of 60 MS. ARCARO: The community -- SPEAKER: Is there one your -- your side is supportive of or -- MS. ARCARO: The -- the community is only on the side of the long version as long as there is this added compromise of adding from the other side. So they -- SPEAKER: We can't speak -- (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: You have to understand: We can't speak to that. But of what we're looking at, where your support lies would be behind this one. I know you have the other caveats -- MS. ARCARO: Right. SPEAKER: -- and details and so forth, but that is the best representation of what you're supportive of. MS. ARCARO: Correct. Let me just check with my clients. (Inaudible) -- SPEAKER: (Inaudible) -- SPEAKER: Yeah; we're going to -- we're going to get everyone in that wants to talk. I~ I'm just trying to -- you know, so you're not -- you're not -- (inaudible) quantify things as we can so we can make an informed decision. SPEAKER: You're not supportive of either scheme as long as you maintain the same total area, same total green open air and fully functioning nine-hole par 3 golf course? file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 26 of 60 MS. ARCARO: Right. We would like to see the commitment that the land that's given for this playground, whatever configuration it is, is then added -- made up, so that -- (Talking simultaneously.) MS. ARCARO: -- so the agreement can be -- SPEAKER: So, then, (inaudible) do you really care about the configuration of the playground -- MS. ARCARO: My clients would have to speak to that, the configuration. And I am sure our president is going to do that right now when he comes up. SPEAKER: Okay. SPEAKER: There seems to be some magical setback. Okay. MS. ARCARO: Okay. SPEAKER: You're all set? For now? C MS. ARCARO: I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal if it is necessary. SPEAKER: If need be. Sir? MR. COREY: Hello, my name is John Corey, and I am the president of the Bay Shore Homeowners' Association, but today I would like to speak as a resident. SPEAKER: Of? MR. COREY: Excuse me? SPEAKER: Where are you a resident of? file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 27 of 60 MR. COREY: 2372 Prairie Avenue. And I have been involved a lot in the homeowners' association, of course, in this area. I went to high school. We worked with the city on many issues. I am just going to bring up a couple points. 90 percent of them are design-related. The first and foremost, I would like to say that from my perspective, I think the city has worked with the neighborhood. And, you know, as far as the sidewalks are concerned, wrapping around the building or the view court -- the -- the windows overlooking the playground and stuff, that was all the neighborhood asked for, and that was worked into the plans. So I would like to give U the city manager credit. We have had a great dialog. The -- a couple of things I have to point out. At the last meeting at the DRB, the neighborhood was under the impression that the item would be continued, because there was no meeting between the city and the -- the neighborhood. And, you know, I'd just like to run this by the DRB board. And the city now is -- is comprised of many, many homeowners' associations. And maybe 15 years ago, the homeowners' associations were loose. I think now, in 2007, with the aspect of e-mail and everything, they're really quite organized now. So I am wondering if there is a process or file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 28 of 60 a way to -- for example, the plan came last month, and one of the questions one of the board members asked: Has the homeowners' association, they don't -- no one is here, is there a letter from them or anything. And the fact that there was no people here, and no letter from the HOA, something might have been up. And actually, something was up, because there was some confusion there. So I think that's why we're here today. So I maybe there's a process to invite the homeowners' associations, maybe sometimes to move a project forward, to have a letter from the community, I think would be extremely beneficial. That's my second point. The third, the original plans that we saw, dating back maybe even nine months ago now, had a golf starter hut. And the description of the project still has the golf starter hut. And in the last rendition, I noticed personally that there doesn't seem to be a golf starter hut. In the packages themselves, there seems to be this vernacular rendering. SPEAKER: The approval did, though. Just for your benefit, the -- the -- the order by this board specifically addressed a separate golf starter hut. MR. COREY: Okay. SPEAKER: Well, they had incorporated into file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 29 of 60 the body of the building and then we had taken it out and kept it separate. No, it was -- it was to make (inaudible} in the -- in the end, because you had all this space in the scheme we preferred. {Talking simultaneously.) n MR. COREY: Right. And the order was to have it on an outhouse. SPEAKER: It was considered to be, you know, for weekend activities and not necessarily compatible with the youth center, that it went out there and that you had direct access from the parking lot, where you could put it. And it will come up as -- as we get into our discussion. But it was part of the order -- SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the condition of the order states that the golf starter structure shall be located outside of the proposed project limits. It's a condition in the order. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) recollection. One for me. (Inaudible). MR. COREY: So I guess, the -- you know, from when I -- as I, really just a layperson looking at the site plan, and here we are at the DRB, it does say that the one-story golf starter structure, and it -- it's obviously from the thing -- it's an outhouse of some -- of some sort, but it doesn't show up on the site plan file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 30 of 60 that we're talking about. So I guess -- II SPEAKER: No. And we amend things and we -- we put into the orders and -- and -- you know, some people are better at this than others on our board of -- of crafting good motions that are very articulate and -- and -- and have a lot of teeth to them. And so -- and that was one of the things that I had just remembered, the discussion on. But, I mean, if you don't see it, it's fair to -- it's -- it's fair to say; that's what this is all about. MR. COREY: Okay. The -- one -- a design item that I would like to ask about is: We don't have any pictures of the building here today, but we seem to be spending a fair amount of money renovating the structure. And this is -- you know, I live in the area. I don't live across from the building, but it's not my favorite building by any means. The roof was originally designed as a structural roof, I believe. I wasn't around at the time, but I have been told it was a structural roof. And if you go up there, you can actually see tennis courts that were up there. Hence there was a chain link -- a black chain link fence that was placed on the perimeter of the roof. And one of the items that we asked about L file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 31 of 60 the city a few months ago, or when this process started: Is there a way to redesign -- if the roof is not going to be used, and I think it was designed to be used, but if it's not going to be used, is there a way to remove or modify a black chain link fence? It kind of looks like a prison a little bit, from the distance. It looks like the basketball courts at a prison or something. I mean -- so we're looking to see if there can be a design comment made on the chain link fence. The playground location, and this is really the heart of the -- of the discussion, and there -- and I want to speak personally here, and I think that the playground, if the city somehow works, as far as, you know -- I don't know if it's some sort of promise to the community or -- you know, I would like to support the playground as long as the city will make a commitment -- I don't know if it needs to be in writing or not -- that they will keep that space playable for the golf course, if it means taking the triangle, like the city manager talked about. But I would like to support the playground if that commitment is somehow solidified. Then there -- the last question is the placement of that square footage of the playground. And I would -- I am going to come up -- file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 32 of 60 SPEAKER: You need the traveling mic, correct? (Talking simultaneously.) MR. COREY: Excuse me? Is this working? SPEAKER: Exactly. MR. COREY: Just real quick: We are looking at two schemes here. And, you know, I have been to many of the meetings, and some of the concern has been that if this is the design that it ends up being -- now we are going to stay at the same square footage or whatnot, you know, personally I am not quite sure if this works any better than this. But is, in the future, talking about the five-year capital plan, if this area is returned back to golf course use, which -- you know, would be seem to be best, it becomes kind of a dead space. And I think that's where we're concerned about, is the design element. We're not just -- we are trying to look at it a little more broadly. And this tree is a little deceiving, but this tree is a ficus tree that probably takes up at least three quarters of an acre. I mean, it is a -- it's not like you can remove this tree and add this piece in and put a golf -- I mean, this is a substantial -- it's a fixture. I mean, it's -- I would say it's at least a 30,000 square foot canopy here. So we are just concerned -- or I am file://D:\SRakowAgenda\ 1206cdj ob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 33 of 60 concerned personally about this space being a dead space. And I think here, this would be much easier to be incorporated. Perhaps the golf starter but could be right here on this corner. And I think -- you know, I like this plan better, as it provides a space more usable in the future. SPEAKER: Okay. MR. COREY: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you very much. SPEAKER: Thank you. Okay. Is there -- ma'am, did you want to speak? MS. WANETZKI: Yes. SPEAKER: Okay, no problem. All right. We'll get them all. MS. WANETZKI: My name is Sylvia Wanetzki; I reside at 264 Prairie Avenue, right across from the par 3 golf course. Let me go back about a year ago, Halloween day of 2006. Mrs. Adreanna Miller and myself met with Commissioner Selgros and with Ellen Bargus, the administrator of the Scott Rakow Center. As soon as we find out that there were plans for the Scott Rakow, that the residents had not been privy to. They had not been consulted, there were no meetings from CIP or anybody in charge of the project. All we knew were there were plans to take part of the par 3 file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 34 of 60 to do some of their improvements. We met, and we ourselves -- Mrs. Miller is an architect, so we provided the Scott Rakow, and the city, with plans that we felt would satisfy the neighborhood, the youth center, and the city. The plans were promised to be taken into consideration, and then nine months later, we get notification that there is going to be a meeting at the Scott Rakow, with their boards and the administrators, showing the new plans. Again, we had not been called to consult, etcetera. The neighborhood -- we are -- SPEAKER: The switch on there. MS. WANETZKI: We have been concerned about the par 3 for over two decades now. You can't see it on this plans. Right here, there is the mikvah. And then there's an empty space of land here, and the Hebrew Academy. We proposed, since that is dead space for the nine-hole golf course, that they take this area as an additional parking lot. And also in the CIP improvements that were passed back in 1999, there's going to be diagonal parking in Sheridan, and we felt that that would supply the extra parking that they needed. We also came up with an idea of putting diagonal parking in front of the Scott Rakow, which would give them another 20-some additional parking spaces. file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 35 of 60 The parents that were there, part of their board of the Scott Rakow, said they didn't feel safe walking the extra 50 feet or so at 8:30 at night. Some said it was too long or to far to walk with their kids and the equipment, and that's why we came out with the idea of this drop-off. The original plan had a drop-off here that was really unsafe, as you would had cars, buses and kids crossing all over the place. So they took this -- our recommendation seriously, and they did this. We also had told them at that point they could have put the playground right here, if they took that area for parking. When they said that they didn't want to walk that far, then we said, okay, why don't you put staff, your buses up here, and then you will have the extra parking. There were conversations going back and forth, back and forth. Eventually, all the residents -- a lot of the residents that live in the area, the residents that live on 28th Street don't want construction -- the -- the staging was supposed to be taking place here. Construction -- you know, they would be facing this playground. And like my neighbor said here, this is the largest of its kind south -- in South Florida. It's -- it's a specimen tree that's been there for God knows how many years, and it's the file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 36 of 60 largest south of Fort Meyers. We -- we want to protect that tree, of course. When we came up with this configuration, it was contingent to several other issues. One of them was the taking of the triangle. I personally counted and measured the number of parking that we have on Prairie Avenue that the residents use as additional parking. We were willing to take that and turn it into parking for Scott Rakow and move it to their side. There was 35 parking spaces inside the golf course on Prairie and 15 outside, so they're putting 45 here, so that's -- that's a trade off. The triangle and this area, more or less, as the city manager said, measure approximately the same amount of square footage. So we said, fine. We got tit for tat, everybody is happy with it. We went out, we measured it 72 feet across. We were told that when this plan was drawn up, we would meet with the city -- the -- the -- Brown & Brown, the architects, and Scott Rakow before they came to CRB. We received a letter saying for us not to show up to the September 4th meeting, from staff, from city staff, because they said the discussion -- it would be continued to today. That's why the neighbors didn't come. Because we were told in writing it was going to be discussed with the file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1/14/2008 Page 37 of 60 neighbor before it came to DRB. If it wasn't for Mr. Miller that was here at the time for some landscaping issue, we would have never found out that meeting took place or that you ladies and gentlemen took a vote on it. The contingency issues were the triangle, the parking of course -- sorry -- at that point, we had a meeting subsequent to your meeting of September 4th. The assistant city manager, Mr. Bob Meadow, was here, and from CIB I believe was Mr. George Shatran was here. When we asked if there was a commitment or any issues with that triangle, we were told that Mr. George Shatran had talked to the county -- because it's the county that has to allow us to take that triangle. So that's hypothetical. We should take the triangle, we could take the triangle, and give you the extra square footage. It's not written in stone, and Mr. Shatran made it very clear that even though there was conversations, eventually we would have to go to county to get approval in taking the triangle. That might also start a conflict with the neighbors, because the problem -- the issue -- and I know Mr. Gonzalez was the one that came up with the idea of the triangle, and a lot of us are happy with it. I don't mind it file://D:1SRakowAgenda\1206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 38 of 60 at all. But we have five neighbors on that street, and all the neighbors on Meridian that feel that if we change the configuration of Prairie and that stop sign in the corner, chances are, all that traffic, they're not going to stop, turn, and turn again on -- on Prairie. The -- the traffic that comes from Prairie coming south is going to have to make that right-hand turn, and up (inaudible) they're going to go to Meridian and start speeding down Meridian to get to wherever they're going -- going south. The other issue: We were given -- we were shown a reconfiguration of the par 3 drawn by Arthur Miller, I believe, to have the reconfiguration facing the right way and having the golf course -- right now, the putting -- the putting area is on -- it goes, you know, towards the Scott Rakow. So that's where we feel is it's not safe for the kids. And unless the par 3 is reconfigured, all those balls are going to be flying into that playground. So the reconfiguration they showed to us was putting the putting green on that side, putting the golf I starter but there, and having the -- the nine holes as is -- as if -- as in that consent agreement. When we saw this, we were excited. We said, yes, we agreed. Another issue is: That file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT Ol/14/2008 Page 39 of 60 plan that you see on the right, those blueprints were never supposed to be shown to the DRB. That was something that was discarded months ago and it was not even supposed to be here and Brown & Brown was not supposed to take it out and show it to you, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement. And what they should have come to you with was the long piece there, the rectangle. When we requested -- at that point, when they showed us the reconfiguration of the nine holes, that was the major contingency that the neighbors had, and that's why agreed to this. At that point, Mr. Bob Meadow and Mr. George Shatran said, there is no money, there will be no money, you will have to go to the budget meeting and see if we can find that money. At the budget meeting, we were told that chances are, the money will not be available to reconfigure the golf course as we were promised. l And that if it happens, it would happen in the next five-year plan, which from 2008 to 2012. We -- the neighbors do believe that the meeting on September 4th was done in bad faith. We do not accept the apologies by Mr. George Shartran. He's done this before. And we feel that we were not notified on purpose so that you could see the plan that was (inaudible). Thank you. file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 40 of 60 SPEAKER: Thank you. Ma'am, could you hold on (inaudible) -- SPEAKER: Oh -- SPEAKER: I want to see if anyone else has to speak, and then we'll give you a chance. Is there anyone else here from the public who wishes to speak on this application? Okay. I guess not. If you want to -- MR. GONZALEZ: I am here representing the city and all the employees of the city. I assure you, there was no bad faith here. If not, why are we here today? I was the one that requested this rehearing so that I can talk to you about specifically the positioning of the field. Why? Because we had an agreement. And something happened along the way; we ended up with what we had not agreed to. And so I got what I wanted. And I said, no, let's come back, because we agreed with the residents in good faith that we wanted to accomplish this one. To stand here now and say that somehow the city or a specific member of my organization acted in bad faith, I think is -- is wrong, frankly, number one. And number two, the issue of the golf course and how we're going to fund this golf course is a separate project. I explained that to you earlier. I've explained it to everybody file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 41 of 60 who wants to listen to it. It's a very separate project. We have been working our tails off to find the resources to do the youth center, which was promise well a long time ago, and we now have it. The issue of the triangle is funded. That is in the budget. It was a budget that was approved last Wednesday by the city commission. Included in that was about $800,000 worth of funds necessary to accomplish the triangle and recapture of that land. All streets need to go to the Miami-Dade l~ County for approval if they're going to be vacated or closed. All streets do, whether they are a city street, a county street or a state street. So we have to do that. But we have a traffic engineering plan in place, we have the design in place, we have our traffic counts in place, we have consultant studies that will all tell you that it is a better solution. And we have never gone to the county, with all of those things pointing in the right direction, and walked away with a decision that we didn't get -- want. And so while, yes, we have to go to the county, because that's mandate, I fully expect that the county will be more than willing to approve it because all the Ts are crossed and all of the Is are dotted on that. file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 42 of 60 I can't speak for the county. So I'm giving as much commitment to that as I possibly can without overstepping my authority. But the money is in place. It's better than any contract. The money is funded. The studies have been done, the design is -- is -- is done, and so we just need to get the county to approve it. So that's why I'm here today, to really ask 1 you -- or ask you to focus specifically on the location of the green. Because I believe that's really the one element that went awry the last time. And -- and I can't believe I am sitting here arguing against what I wanted originally, but only to make sure that no one can allege that we were duplicitous or acting in bad faith along the way. And that's why I am here asking you to do what I have asked you to do. SPEAKER: Okay, thank you. MS. ARCARO: Okay, so we have an answer to the question, and we're very pleased that the city manager has come forward and that they have put money in the budget for this year, which we were not aware of for the triangle. The community is willing to accept the long version of a playground in exchange for them getting the funding -- putting together and taking that triangle and adding it on the other side. That's what -- that's what file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 43 of 60 they're willing to support. We prefer to have it in writing -- is -- is this transcribed? Is this meeting transcribed? SPEAKER: It is recorded, it's not transcribed. MS. ARCARO: So we would have to have it transcribed? (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: There is -- there is a record. SPEAKER: For practical purposes, you would have to create your own written transcript. SPEAKER: Now we are going to talk about a configuration. We're not going to be able to comment or -- or make any side legal deals, but we may be able to get everyone a step closer to where they want to be. MS. ARCARO: Right. So I just want to recap -- SPEAKER: Or not. MS. ARCARO: -- and give you your answers to that question, because you did ask that question. And I am going to give this to the attorney. SPEAKER: But we will be as deliberate as possible regardless of whether you like what we do or not. All right. Thank you very much. I am going to close this to public comment, file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O1/l 4/2008 Page 44 of 60 and we're going to go with the board's comments and discussion. Anyone want to start? SPEAKER: Is there anybody from Scott Rakow here? Anybody that deals with the operation of Scott Rakow? SPEAKER: Well, the -- the parks department is represented, so -- SPEAKER: In the playground area, are they going to have birthday parties? MR. SMITH: We would -- we would -- for the record -- I'm sorry, Kevin Smith, director of parks and recreation. we would see it just as a multipurpose open green space, and -- and to say the program planning is -- is wide open. I mean, it -- it's -- to be as specific as would there be a birthday party? Very possibly. If someone (inaudible} -- SPEAKER: If it's playground activities that are typical playground activities, that's one thing. But if it's sort of organized music and a lot of (inaudible) -- MR. SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question, then, sir. For example, we do -- we do play -- birthday parties at the Scott Rakow right now file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 45 of 60 where you can -- it -- and skating and a pool activities that are av facility. So whether out and play kick ball SPEAKER: They're it may include bowling -- going into the pool, ailable on site at the -- whether they might go not bringing in a deejay or (inaudible) -- MR. SMITH: No. No. I mean, that -- no, that wouldn't -- more than likely, that would not take place on that piece of property. MS. ARCARO: Okay, but to be fair, at other parks in the city where you do rent out -- Muss park is a good example -- when people rent out Muss Park for birthday parties, they routinely bring giant bounce houses and other -- MR. SMITH: They may bring bounce houses, yeah. (Talking simultaneously.) MS. ARCARO: -- activity. And there have been deejays -- I have been to several birthday parties at Muss Park where there is outdoor space where, in addition to these great blow-up things, there are deejays. MR. SMITH: But -- but generally when we do the -- the birthday parties at the Scott Rakow, most of that type of activity takes interiors. I mean, obviously we haven't had this exterior space to our use, but I would not exclude that -- a birthday party. I would not file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 46 of 60 exclude a -- a movie in the park, should we decide to do it when we do a movie. We do movies at the pool right now as a community activity, you know. So it's -- it's an open green space. We could still -- I mean, we could -- quite frankly, we could do that right now on the golf course, so -- SPEAKER: You do movies at the pool now? MR. SMITH: Right. We do movies at the pool. We do movies in the park at North Shore -- North Shore Park. We do them at Flamingo. We've done them at Muss Park. It's a product that we -- an activity that the parks and recreation department produces and invites the community. SPEAKER: Thank you. MR. SMITH: Sure. SPEAKER: From what I've heard from the community, it seemed to me that the -- the C1 biggest contention was maintaining the volume of green space and maintaining the functionality of a nine-hole par 3 golf course. And whether or not the configuration of this park affects that would play into the concerns of the community. Since, from all the testimony we've heard that the same volume or more area of green space has been maintained and a nine-hole golf course can be designed around either of these schemes -- and I think that in fact you're going to get file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 47 of 60 a better nine-hole golf course with a starter but more removed from any kind of involvement with the neighborhood with the L-shaped scheme rather than the long, skinny scheme. And from the testimony of the -- our board remember who was adamant about child safety, I don't see any reason not to support the original scheme that we approved. It meets all the criteria, and it maybe affects a couple of people along 28th Street, with noise of children playing every once in a while, but I think the noise of children playing is completely overwhelmed by the safety of children. I would have to support the original scheme that we approved. I SPEAKER: And will be eclipsed by the marching band, the high school practices. SPEAKER: I concur. I was very -- I felt strongly about the position as well. I was actually very pleased that the architect did raise his concerns, because he was obligated to do so as a licensed professional. There is a specific design discipline for safety and security in site design. And this was not, unfortunately, in my opinion, taken into consideration. These are very specific highly -- these are trained consultants who are available and out there, and they do seminars. Part of our continuing education as a licensed file://D:1SRakowAgendal l 206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 48 of 60 architect, we go into these seminars where they present the issues. And for us to maintain our continuing education, we have to take these into -- into account. So I am -- was very strong about this from the beginning. The -- the -- that design jumped out at me immediately. And with all due respect, I understand every one else has their separate issues, but there really is -- I am still going to stay with my original position, that the safety of the -- of the occupants is a design professional's fundamental obligation. And if we have to choose a scheme, the one that we supported last month fulfills that. SPEAKER: Supervision also is much more. I really am concerned about the safety in regards to the rectangle design. Supervision is very important, and you just don't have the -- the eye of being able to see the entire view. SPEAKER: I want to thank the rest of my board members for letting the neighbors come back and speak their minds. I was particularly concerned when I posed the question to Mr. Canno at the last meeting of, where was the neighborhood? Because I was intimately familiar with the contentious process that the city has gone in, and you smugly replied to me, well, we must have done our job. And as it turned out, you all didn't do your job. So I hope that you file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 49 of 60 have learned that lesson about your smugness. And before you so smugly reply to someone who knew better, that you had done your job, that you have a little bit of civility and -- and admit that you can make a mistake. With all due respect to the city manager being here to back you up and to back up, you know, the i~ director of CIP, frankly you all made a mistake, and the neighborhood wasn't here. And so it does raise a lot of concerns when a contentious issue comes before this board and there is no letter of support, which we asked for, and there is nobody from the neighborhood to speak. This is a very well-informed populace who wants to be part of the process. And I hope that the CIP has learned its lesson and that these kinds of mistakes in miscommunication, or whatever, are not repeated. And so I especially thank the rest of the board members for reopening this discussion and allowing the neighbors to speak. I think the city manager raises some good issues about not wanting to be contentious. There have been several issues that have gone to uses of public parks in the city of late. Pine Tree Park is an example where the city commissioners at their committee meetings decided not to move ahead with projects proposed by one side of the issue because of the file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 50 of 60 contentiousness that was raised. And the city has said, and city commissioners have said, that they would rather spend their money where there n is consensus, rather than when there is not. And I am not quite sure where this sits. I mean, we have been threatened with litigation from the attorney for the Bay Shore Homeowners' Association if they don't get their way today. I don't know what that does to the project. I -- I still believe, as I said, the couple of times that this project has come that it's been sloppy in the way it's -- it's been presented. The first set of plans were incredibly sloppy. The second set of plans was now a mistake, that things were shown, and -- and notice was a mistake, and now we are sort of back here again. I still contend that this -- in all due respect to the city manager, that this parcel of land and what happens of it is integral to the par 3. And for any use of this space, any configuration not to be incorporated into a master plan of the entire site is wrong. It's wrong from a prospective planning perspective, and it's wrong from a neighborhood perspective. And I understand the funding that you tried to put in a myopic view, well, we got the money for here so we can do this, you know, it doesn't address what has happened with the Hebrew file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 51 of 60 Academy and how their use of land and their taking and giving and money, exchanging of land, affects the use. And it sort of does seem unequal treatment from where I sit. You know, that speck of land that's over south of the mikvah, even though the -- a great use of it would be parking, we're not being afforded that consideration for one reason or another, because people think it's unsafe, or people think it's too far to walk. And yet we say that out of one side of our mouth, but the other side of the mouth, we acknowledge that we live in paradise, where we should promote walking and we're promoting healthy activities from children. And to say, well, now we can't walk them an extra 50 feet because it's too far for them, when they're going to spend an hour and a half working up a sweat playing hockey? It just doesn't make any sense to me. So I still think that this plan, in its form, is not right for this board, that there are safety concerns that -- that Mr. Lefton has, and I am very sorry that he is not here to address them. And I am not even quite sure procedurally what's being asked. If we're being J asked to reconsider our decision? SPEAKER: What -- what is before you is solely the issue of whether the park design will file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 52 of 60 be the L-shaped configuration or the horizontal configuration. That's it. (Talking simultaneously.) MS. ARCARO: But the board voted -- SPEAKER: It's a review of the specific condition, in the original order, as to the configuration of the play area. Nothing else in the original application is before you. SPEAKER: We separated that into two votes, didn't we? (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: No. No. This was one order, and the conditions specify that the park is to be the L-shaped configuration. What the city as the applicant is requesting is that you amend that condition to allow for the horizontal park. That's the only thing that's before you right now. And just -- I need to put on the record that at the August meeting the matter was continued to a date certain of September 4th. So the meeting that you had on -- on September -1 was legally noticed pursuant to the code. SPEAKER: I still think it's wrong to go forward without a master plan for the park. To reconsider it, to do any configuration, it's just wrong. It's just wrong. SPEAKER: Anybody else? Motions? SPEAKER: What kind of motion would -- if file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 53 of 60 we are reconsidering -- (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: You're not reconsidering. The project is approved. what is before you is a request to revise one of the conditions of the final order. And your options are to either approve that request to revise the final order, or to not approve it. (Inaudible) -- MR. GONZALEZ: At this point -- first of all, let me thank you for the time you've given us. At this point, the will doesn't appear to be there to reconsider. So I would tell you that the approval you have stands, I guess. SPEAKER: Well, I will go ahead and try the motion. (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: We need to -- SPEAKER: I'm sorry. SPEAKER: We would need to -- (Talking simultaneously.) MR. GONZALEZ: Is it appropriate that I withdraw the request? SPEAKER: No, I would (inaudible) -- I would allow them to vote on it, and then you can take whatever process you may after. MR. GONZALEZ: Okay. So I guess you need to vote to deny the request? SPEAKER: Yeah. If you were to deny this file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 54 of 60 request, then the final -- the original final order that was issued on September 4th would still be in effect. The only action you're taking is that you're denying the request to revise this condition. SPEAKER: It doesn't have to be some -- the maker of the motion doesn't have to be somebody who affirmed -- (Talking simultaneously.) MR. GONZALEZ: That's for motion to reconsider. This is not a motion to reconsider. This is a completely new thing. SPEAKER: So the city is proposing the elongated -- SPEAKER: Yes. SPEAKER: Okay. So I am going to move that motion. SPEAKER: To accept the -- SPEAKER: To accept the elongated park and to alter the condition from the last time to what the city is asking for now. SPEAKER: Do we have a second? You -- you may want to speak in favor of your motion. SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, I think -- I will tell you why I -- even though I don't -- I think it's wrong to do this without a master plan. I think that, you know, it's important to respect what this neighborhood wants. And although, you file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 55 of 60 know -- my children have gone to Scott Rakow, and right now they -- to go play in the backyard, they go through the kitchen and out this back door to get to this playground area, this green space area. And I would like to see that formalized, and I think that this comprise gives everybody a little of what they want. And -- and what I learned in -- in working in a law firm was that when you reach a compromise, nobody is happy. And that's a good thing, and f~ nobody is happy with this compromise, and yet everybody is a little happy. And yet there are people who are soundly opposed to the L-shaped configuration. And so I think we should give deference to making everybody a little unhappy and now do what the city wants and make the elongated -- SPEAKER: Yeah, (inaudible) may I comment for a minute or maybe ask a question of the administration? SPEAKER: Please. SPEAKER: It seems like one of the issues that the board is concerned about is supervision of people who would be using the play area. Is there anything that you can propose or provide additional information on, maybe accept a condition, on use of the play area, that there will always be supervision, something that the board can consider in evaluating -- the file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O l /14/2008 Page 56 of 60 application? MR. GONZALEZ: We always have supervision out there when we have the children out there. I don't think that we would allow for kids to just go out there and play. The fenced area gives us a lot more control over the space that is going to be used, as opposed to today, where it's pretty much wide open. I would urge you not to put a condition like that in, because that's an operational issue that the department will have to, you know, manage as we go along. We have not had this in a formal way. And so we're not quite sure yet what the staffing requirements will be. But clearly, you know, we -- the kids are in our custody for a good amount of time, and we have the staffing necessary to make sure that they are supervised, whether inside the building or outside the building. And so from an operational perspective, we would not use either of these configurations if they were unsafe. SPEAKER: Question. Regarding both configurations, would both be fenced? MR. GONZALEZ: Beg your pardon? SPEAKER: Would both be fenced, whether it was rectangular -- MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. SPEAKER: -- or L-shaped. MR. GONZALEZ: Yes. file://D:1SRakowAgenda\1206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 57 of 60 MS. ARCARO: And we are not going to light it at this point, right? MR. GONZALEZ: There is no lighting planned, no. It's predominantly for use during the kids' aftercare program or the weekends and stuff like that. That's the intent here. And what we're trying to accomplish, again, is, you know -- it's -- it's a youth center. The kids come in and get locked into this building. And yeah, it's a great youth center. I mean, there's bowling and there's ice skating and there's billiards and foos ball, and all that great stuff. But we have a beautiful day outside, and, you know, they want -- they want to play soccer, or they want to play flag football. SPEAKER: We've got a motion to second or not. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) if I'm allowed to speak before the board? SPEAKER: No. We've got a motion on the table and we got to be seconded. SPEAKER: I wanted to show the lady that (inaudible) where Scott Rakow -- where there are windows for supervision -- SPEAKER: Ma'am, you're not on the record. You have to approach the microphone. f. file://D:\SRakowAgendal ] 206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008 Page 58 of 60 SPEAKER: Ma'am, we are done with public comment anyway. SPEAKER: No, it's not a public comment -- SPEAKER: It is a public (inaudible) -- SPEAKER: No, I wanted to (inaudible) the city manager (inaudible) but the windows -- SPEAKER: Please use the microphone. SPEAKER: You were asking about (inaudible) -- supervision. This area is all windows, upstairs and downstairs, and that's why when the community met with Scott Rakow, the architects, you could actually see the children play from upstairs and downstairs. The door is right here, so we have allowed for this little area for the kids to be able to exit there. Right here -- SPEAKER: My concern is -- SPEAKER: -- you have the wall of the pool. There is no -- SPEAKER: My concern is when it's an elongated area and there are some children playing in the center, you can't always see what's going on at the very end. Just -- that's just the experience of being in education for many, many years. SPEAKER: We got a motion on the table. We can do this one more time. SPEAKER: I'll second it. SPEAKER: Procedurally, I would be remiss file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 59 of 60 to not point this out. SPEAKER: Ma'am, please. We're either going to do the motion or we're not going to do the motion. We did public comment. We've talked this through. You know, we're to the point where we're voting. SPEAKER: Okay. This is procedurally as to where you're standing right now in your decision making. It just -- SPEAKER: Ma'am, procedurally, we're right in the middle of a procedure. SPEAKER: Okay. That's up to you. SPEAKER: Thank you. All right. Do we have a second? SPEAKER: (Inaudible) I'll second it. SPEAKER: Your motion -- would you repeat your motion? SPEAKER: It's to accept the recommendation of the city and reconsider and accept the -- (Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: And it was seconded by us. IJ All in favor? SPEAKER: Aye. SPEAKER: Opposed? SPEAKERS: Nay. SPEAKER: No. SPEAKER: Motion fails. SPEAKER: I make a motion to approve the -- to deny the application. file://D:\SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT 01/14/2008 Page 60 of 60 {Talking simultaneously.) SPEAKER: Actually, you donut have to take any action. SPEAKER: It dies? SPEAKER: It dies. SPEAKER: Okay. MR. GONZALEZ: But I do want to take this time to thank you again for the time and all the work you do, not only on this project but all the other projects that you have to deal with. Thank you. (End of CD.) C E R T I F I C A T E I, JACKIE MENTECKY, do hereby certify that I was authorized to transcribe the foregoing recorded proceeding, and that the transcript is a true and accurate transcription of my shorthand notes taken while listening to the provided recording. Dated this IOth day of December, 2007. JACKIE MENTECKY file://D:1SRakowAgenda11206cdjob.TXT O 1 /14/2008