FINAL OFFICIAL
Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners Minutes
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
9:30:00 AM
Commission Chambers
Disclaimer Minutes Definitions   Minutes Download Adobe Reader

Members Present: Barbara J. Jordan; Jean Monestime; Audrey M. Edmonson; Rebeca Sosa; Xavier L. Suarez; Daniella Levine Cava; Dennis C. Moss; Sen. Javier D. Souto; Jose "Pepe" Diaz; Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Members Absent: Sally A. Heyman
Members Late: Bruno A. Barreiro; Juan C. Zapata
Members Excused: None
Members Absent County Business: None

         
MINUTES PREPARED BY:  
  REPORT: Karen Harrison, Commission Reporter (305)375-1296  
1A INVOCATION AS PROVIDED IN RULE 5.05(H)  
  REPORT: Chairman Monestime called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. with a moment of silence. He invited Sergeant-of-Arms Michael Roan to lead the invocation, followed by the pledge of allegiance.  
1B ROLL CALL  
  REPORT: In addition to the members of the County Commission, the following staff members were present:
- Assistant County Attorneys Dennis Kerbel, Abbie Schwaderer Raurell
- Assistant Director Mark Woerner, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources(RER)
- Mr. Garett Rowe, Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Administration Supervisor, RER;
- Clerk of the Board Division Chief Christopher Agrippa and Deputy Clerk Karen Harrison
Following comments made by Chairman Monestime regarding the order of today�s (11/18) and the process of presenting each application, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised there were no other agenda changes.

It was moved by Commissioner Diaz that today�s (11/18) agenda be approved. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sosa, and upon being put to a vote, the motion passed by a vote of 8-0, (Commissioners Heyman, Barreiro, Bovo, Souto and Zapata were absent.)

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised the public on the process in speaking before the Board. He also advised that application numbers 7 and 8 related amendments to the Urban Development Boundary would require a super majority seven (7) votes to be transmitted and because the small scale amendment Application No. 6 addressed a location within a mile of Chrome Avenue there was a unique master plan policy that required nine (9) affirmative votes from the super majority of the entire Board for final adoption.
 
1C PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
1D REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE HEARD AS PROVIDED IN RULE 6.06  
2 MAYORAL REPORTS  
2A1  
  152640 Report      
  REPORT ON MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN (SEE AGENDA ITEM NOS. 4B THRU 4B1)(Mayor) Presented
  REPORT: Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department, noted the arrangements made for persons who needed an interpreter, which should be noted on the speaker cards.

Mr. Woerner stated the purpose of today�s (11/18) Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) meeting was to take final action on (6) small scale applications, and (3) standard application that totaled (9) applications filed during the May 2015 cycle of amendments to the CDMP. He noted the assigned Agenda Items to the following applications:
- Applications No. 1 through 6 - Agenda Items 3A through 3F
- Applications No. 7 through 9 - Agenda Items 4A through 4C

Mr. Woerner noted that once the final vote was taken on the small scale applications there was an option to be transmitted as a small scale through an accompanied resolution upon approval in order to take action as needed. He also noted that once transmitted these small scale applications would come back to this Board for final action in March 2016.

Commissioner Bovo arrived at 10:11 a.m.
 
3 SMALL-SCALE APPLICATIONS  
3A  
  152492 Ordinance   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 1, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NE 109 STREET AND NE 13 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Ordinance 15-134
Mover: Audrey M. Edmonson
Seconder: Rebeca Sosa
Vote: 10 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Barreiro , Zapata
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3A1 for Application No. 1.

Ms. Wendy Francois and Mr. Stan Price, Bilzin Sumberg Attorneys at Law, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant in support of the staff recommendations.

Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department noted for the record this small scale application was located in District 3 and was about an acre of land with a request of change from a medium density to business and office. He further noted there was covenant associated with this application that would restrict the property to commercial use only to consist of a ground level commercial parking and such use was otherwise permitted and consistent with the medium density residential land use designation. Mr. Woerner stated if the property was developed with a ground level commercial parking there would be landscape offered for the property adjacent the north residential property.

Mr. Woerner stated the same recommendation by the department to adopt this proposed ordinance came from the Community Council and the Planning Advisory Board (PAB)

Chairman Monestime opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item, and seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the public hearing.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented; and the withdrawal of the proposed resolution 3A1.

The Board adopted Application No.1 as recommended by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.
 
  11/3/2015 Adopted on first reading by the Board of County Commissioners  
  11/3/2015 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners  
3A1  
  152641 Resolution      
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 1, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NE 109 STREET AND NE 13 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 1; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
Resolution
Mover: Audrey M. Edmonson
Seconder: Rebeca Sosa
Vote: 10 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Barreiro , Zapata
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 3A, Legislative File No. 152492  
3B  
  152494 Ordinance   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 2, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 56 STREET AND SW 89 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Ordinance 15-135
Mover: Sen. Javier D. Souto
Seconder: Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Vote: 11 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Zapata
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3B1 for Application No. 2.

Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department provided a description of the subject property on Miller Drive and SW 89th Avenue located in District 10. He noted the request was to change the designation from low density residential to business and office in addition to the proffered covenant related to this item.

Mr. Woerner stated that staff, Community Council 12, and the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance with the acceptance of the proffered covenant. He said that the Community Council 12 requested the use of this property be limited to restaurant use in ancillary use to the restaurant and at all time be compatible with the surrounding residential area, which were included in the covenant that was before the Board. Mr. Woerner said this small site already had an existing restaurant that was part of the Hidden Valley Golf Course Club House; however, had been converted overtime into residential homes. He pointed out an existing BUA zoned property where the restaurant was located along with approved parking area, surrounded by the area zoned RU1.

Mr. Woerner noted that the applicant wanted to continue the restaurant use and the covenant that was before the Board would limit the use of accompanying services, restaurant, markets, catering, demonstrations, deliveries, and other ancillary uses; however, no residential or office development would be allowed on the property.

Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised that if the Board was to adopt the covenant there was an issue in finalizing the covenant pertaining to non-receipt of the opinion of title on time, therefore the applicant would need an additional 30 days to finalize the covenant. He recommended that upon approval the motion would require with the condition that if a legally sufficient covenant was not provided within the 30 days the application would be deemed withdrawn.

Mr. Jonathan Coto and Rene� Garcia, Coto Garcia Law Firm, 5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 604, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of Applicant 2 and asked that they be allowed to carry out the vision of a restaurant at this subject property location.

Chairman Monestime opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item.

Mr. Victor Llerandi, 8830 SW 58th Street, Miami appeared before the Board and spoke against the foregoing application. He asked about the covenant and whether it indicated on the second page of the terms that this declaration would run with the land, which meant the property and not the current owner. Mr. Llerandi noted the next item in the covenant modification indicated that it was reopened to the owner stating restrictions may be modified, amended, or released as to the land herein described, etc.

Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer Raurell advised this was a standard provision concerning modification of covenants, such as an applicant who within 20 years could file an application to amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan to change a covenant that would come before Board for approval as well as the Community Council and PAB as part of this process.

Mr. Llerandi requested to put in the covenant a mandatory timeframe of ownership before any modifications were made, such as 10 years. He also expressed concern that this property would be sold to someone else and changes would be made.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that restrictions on who the property could be turned over to was not in the authority of this Board. He pointed out that any changes made to this covenant would require public notice and approval from this Board with a super majority vote within this same process. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that this covenant had a 30 year term to automatically renew in 10 year increments, therefore with those restrictions on the timeframe to make an amendment an application could be filed to amend that term.

In response to Mr. Llerandi comment of concern regarding the need to obtain a copy of the covenant, he was offered assistance from the Administration to receive a copy.

Chairman Monestime closed the public hearing after no other persons appeared wishing to speak on this item.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented and with the additional required 30 days to submit the final covenant; in addition to the withdrawal of the proposed resolution 3B1.

The Board adopted Application No. 2 as recommended by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources with the conditions that a legally sufficient covenant be provided within 30 days or this application would be deemed withdrawn.
 
  11/3/2015 Adopted on first reading by the Board of County Commissioners  
  11/3/2015 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners  
3B1  
  152644 Resolution      
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 2, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 56 STREET (MILLER ROAD) AND SW 89 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 2; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
Resolution
Mover: Sen. Javier D. Souto
Seconder: Rebeca Sosa
Vote: 11 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Zapata
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 3B, Legislative File No. 152641  
3C  
  152497 Ordinance   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 3, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 56 STREET AND SW 127 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Ordinance 15-136
Mover: Sen. Javier D. Souto
Seconder: Daniella Levine Cava
Vote: 12 - 0
Absent: Heyman
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3C1 for Application No. 3.

Mr. Woerner Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department provided a legal description of this small scale site located in Commission District 10 on the SE corner of 127th Avenue and Miller Road that was approximately one acre. He said the request was a small scale amendment to re-designate the property from agriculture to business and office. Mr. Woerner noted the County staff recommendation was a denial as well as the Community Council; however, the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) recommended transmittal as a standard application with the acceptance of the proffered covenant without a recommendation on whether to adopt or to deny the application.

Mr. Woerner noted Application No. 3 proposal for a small scale amendment within the Horse Country community was inconsistent with the agriculture designation of the area and was detrimental to its unique character. He spoke of the history of similar application for this land use was filed in April, 2012, which received the same recommendations by staff and the Community Council; and was withdrawn before being presented to the PAB or this Commission. Mr. Woerner commented on the history of how this community retained its rural character of the only existing two square mile area inside of urban development boundary (UDB) that has been protected and preserved in line with recommendations from the Bird Kendall Ranch Study from 1975 and West Dade Ranch Area Study adopted by this Board in 1981.

Mr. Woerner spoke of the provisions of the agriculture land uses, such as plant nurseries, landscape supply companies, horse riding, and Boarding Academy and was consistent with this agriculture designation. He also noted there was large lot rural residential development that was permitted within this area.

Mr. Woerner stated approval this application based on the staff�s view would set a president and set a catalyst for future non-agricultural land use map amendments on land within the Horse Country. He reiterated the reasons why this application request for the future did not demonstrate proper consideration of the unique character of the Horse Country area as required by the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) policy LU-8E although the applicant indicated the site request was consistent with the guidelines for urban form. Mr. Woerner noted these guidelines were was listed in the CDMP Plan as an adopted policy regarding within the residential community designation category that listed the location of different residential land use categories particularly identifying the four corners of section line roads of major intersections and the commercial nodes should be a part of that urban form. However, he pointed out that in this case the guidelines for urban form did not apply.

Mr. Woerner reported this proposal for urbanization of land within this rural Horse Country community should not be used to address commercial land use deficiencies in the urbanized portion of this area. He noted the location of the commercial land was within a mile of this site and a million square feet of other commercial land in use surrounding that area. Mr. Woerner explained that the covenant submitted by the applicant would prohibit residential development on this site and would limit it to 75,000 square feet development in addition to restrictions on about 46 different types of commercial uses. He said there was a provision for minimum set-backs that would be approximately 40 feet larger or wider from the southern boundary property and a limited point of sale signs and size. He also noted this covenant required a type of architectural design as part of the site plan with an approval process that would maintain an equestrian design in architectural expressions and features.

Mr. Woerner noted in rebuttal to representations made pertaining to this site regarding the small amount of agriculture in the area, and noted it was not a typical agricultural area although there were not road crops grown there were other agricultural activities. He pointed out that approximately 60 percent of the properties in this area have an agricultural classification. Mr. Woerner explained that approximately 22 institutional uses were approved since 1960 to develop churches and schools mainly located on 72 Street and along 127th Avenue. He further explained very few were approved after that time followed by the Board adopting Resolution R-605-15 that directed the Mayor or designee to organize a Charrette for Horse Country to be completed by January 2016 at which a report would be due on the status.

Mr. Woerner noted the need for public input to share the community�s vision for its development and to be presented in the required Charrette before approving this change of land use. He said his view of this was a separate application that should be based on its own merit whether the Charrette was completed or not. He reiterated the recommendations aforementioned.

Mr. Juan Mayol, Esquire, Holland and Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of the Ferber Company, Application No. 3 and noted there were a number of supporters that were outside of the chambers. He asked that the representatives for Applications 7, 8, and 9 that had not been called to offer their seats to a group from a Coconut Grove.

Chairman Monestime said there was system in place therefore, he would call the names in groups of 6 and the Sergeant-of-Arms could escort those persons who wished to speak on the item because seating arrangement was on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Mr. Mayol presented a Power Point presentation on the subject property and pointed out the heavy traffic that occurred around this area on Miller Road. He spoke of the applicant�s years of experience in building retail offices and the different efforts made in reaching out to the public for input. Mr. Mayol commented on the number of supporters who signed petitions that totaled 2,855 in District 10.

Mr. Mayol noted this application request was not an attempt to change the master plan or expand non-negotiable business use for the Horse Country area. He commented on the objection campaign that was digital that provided misinformation. Mr. Mayol pointed out because the population had increased in Horse Country the services in that area were not at the same level. He continued with the Power Point presentation on the following subjects:

- Location: The Intersection of Two Section line roads
- Historical View (1975)
- West Dade Ranch Study Area-Where are the trails?
- 1975 Perspective
- Agricultural Designation Does Not Match Reality
- Steady Population Growth
- Horse Country Today at a Glance
- Where are the Agricultural uses? Residential is the Predominant Land Use
1. 29 Institutional uses
- Rural Neighborhood? View from the Property
- Abundant �Retail� Uses
- Urban Corridors/Where are the trails?
- 4,000 Students
- Institutional and Commercial Uses on the Northside/Southside of Miller Road
- Few Equestrian Uses- Thrive on Interior Roadways away from Miller Road
- 63 percent of Employees in Churches and Schools/ 18 percent in Agriculture
- Review Factors in Policy LU-8E
- Consequences of Deficiency � Increased Traffic Congestion
1. No Available Parking Spaces
- Lack of Vacant Commercial Land/Too Far to Provide Relief
- Application Meets All the Standards
- Major Transportation Corridors
- Case Study: Neighborhood Serving Retail is Compatible in Agricultural Areas
- Twelve Commercially Designated Corners Outside of the UDB in the Area/Why not here?
- Declaration of Restrictions

In conclusion, Mr. Mayo noted this application applied to a single parcel of land that has gone through an exhausting review process and urged the Board members to support Application No. 3. He noted there would be copies of those petitions for the record and he asked the people who were in support of this application to stand to be recognized.

Discussion ensued among the Board members and Attorneys representing the community organizations regarding the process in allowing everyone the opportunity to speak on this item.

Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised and noted for the record that Mr. Miguel DeGrandy was representing an organized group of neighborhood supporters, which was similar representation by Mr. Gibbs for the organized group of neighborhood objectors. He suggested that during the public hearing the Board could allow Mr. DeGrandy to represent and identify those persons who filled out speaker cards.

Chairman Monestime announced that he would call the speakers from the speaker cards he received. He pointed out that this same application request was rejected three years ago by Community Council 11, followed by a withdrawal.

Commissioner Zapata arrived at 11:13 a.m.

Mr. Tucker Gibbs 3835 Utopia Court, Coconut Grove, representing the Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association spoke in opposition of this application and asked those persons whom he represented to stand in order to be recognized.

Mr. Mark Alvarez, 3109 Grand Avenue, Miami, also appeared before the Board on behalf of the Bird Kendall Homeowners Association and presented a Power Point addressing the following subjects:
- CDMP Policy LU-8E (criteria)
1. Deficiency (MSA 6.1)
- Existing Land Use
- Land use Perspective
- What is Horse Country?
- Summary of Studies since 1975
- To Protect, Conserve and Foster
- Staff Recommendation : Deny
- No Basis for Amendment
- Amendment is Inconsistent with CDMP
- Horse Country Land Use Amendment
1. Incompatible
2. Inconsistent

Commissioner Bovo left the meeting at 11:48 a.m.

Mr. Miguel DeGrandy, 701 Brickell Avenue appeared before the Board on behalf of Horse Country Residents United Association Homeowners in support of Application No. 3. He also asked that all resident students from Horse Country stand to be recognized because of the large number of approximately 4,000 students who were transported to Horse Country to attend school.

Chairman Monestime opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item.

The following persons appeared before the Board in support the foregoing Application No. 3:

- Mr. Guillermo Cuadra, 3250 NE First Ave, Miami, on behalf of Carlos Curbelo and Neighbors
- Mr. Victor Hugo Lerzano, 6421 SW 136 Court, Miami (Assisted by Translator)
- Ms. Leydi Martinero, 13060 SW 64 Terrace, Miami
- Mr. Tom Rementeria, 14132 SW 154th Court, Miami
- Ms. Maria Paz, 6224 SW 131 Court, Miami
- Ms. Annabelle Lastre, 301 NW 109 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Jesus Topid, 12863 SW 65 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Betty Gayon, 5700 SW 108 Court, Miami (Assisted by Translator)
- Ms. Katherine Gavivia, 5630 SW 108 Court, Miami
- Ms. Maria Tejeda, 6229 SW 131 Place, Miami (Assisted by Translator)
- Ms. Isabel Lithman, 7901 SW 57th Terrace, Miami (Not a resident in HC)
- Ms. Claire Barebell, 11267 SW 33 Street, noted she was misled and wished to support the foregoing item.
- Mr. Farid Chehab, 2801 Florida Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Susan Hutson, 5221 SW 132 SW 132 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Jack Tierney, 5600 SW 118 Avenue, Miami

The following persons appeared before the Board in opposition of Application No. 3:

- Mr. Michael Rosenberg, 13030 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami
- Ms. Annette Taddeo, 6460 SW 133 Drive, Miami
- Mr. Ernie Thomas, 6050 SW 120 Avenue, Miami

Commissioner Sosa requested that the speakers along with providing their address inform the Board as to whether they reside in Horse Country (HC).

The following persons continued to speak in opposition of the foregoing item:

- Ms. Ana Rosa Tazio, 425 Woodcrest Road, Key Biscayne (Not a resident in HC)
- Mr. Alex Sierra, 5870 SW 120 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Michael Miller, 11923 SW 45 Street, Miami on behalf of Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association and the following persons yielded their time to speak to Mr. Miller:
-
1. Ms. Teresita Marin Sierra, 5870 SW 120 Avenue, Miami
2. Mr. Robert Shockey, 12490 SW 46 Street, Miami
3. Ms. Debby Sessions, 11900 SW 46 Street, Miami
4. Mr. Ron Weeks, 11840 SW 47 Street, Miami
5. Ms. Migdalia Arteaga, 6700 SW 123 Avenue, Miami

Chairman Monestime asked for the sake of consistency whether questioning the speakers were residents of HC was consistent with the requirements since he did not ask the previous speakers this question at the beginning of today�s (11/18) meeting.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the question was to identify the neighborhood and it was acceptable.

Commissioner Diaz noted that residents located across from HC were notified of this application because they would be impacted as well. He said he believed questioning whether they reside in HC was to identify those persons living in the proximity of the area.

The following persons appeared before the Board and spoke in opposition of the foregoing item:
- Mr. Mario Hernandez, 12355 SW 64 Street, Miami
- Pastor Marc Mortensaw, 5801 SW 120th Ave, Miami

- Mr. Lorenzo Palomares, Esquire, 2333 Brickell Avenue, appeared before the Board and spoke on behalf of the Florida Paso Fino Association and the following persons:

1. Mr. Manuel Alvarez, 8401 Dundee Terrace, Miami
2. Mr. Albert Couto, 12350 SW 64th Street, Miami
3. Mr. Jorge Pinera, 12475 SW 45 Street, Miami
4. Ms. Lisa Vale, 6961 SW 62 Street, Miami
5. Mr. Arealio (Phonic) Arteaga. 6700 SW 123 Avenue

The following persons appeared before the Board and spoke in opposition of Application No. 3:

- Mr. Tom Worrell, 6200 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Pam Shockey, 12490 SW 46 Street, Miami
- Ms. Carol Vega, 5801 SW 125 Avenue, Miami, spoke on behalf of Bird Kendall Homeowners Association
- South Miami Commissioner Bob Welsh, 7437 SW 64 Court, Miami
- Mr. Humberto Triana, 6211 SW 116 Place, Miami
- Ms. Helen Diaz, 6221 SW 58 Street, Miami
- Mr. Gary Malfeld, Esq. 13251 SW 68 Terrace, Miami
- Mr. Mariano Migel, 12220 SW 45 Street, Miami
- Ms. Cheri Gillies, 6600 SW 122 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Raine Calva, 5603 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Erin Bauer, 6105 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Eric Cohen, 6701 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Joseph Zahcalban, 6660 SW 125 Ave, Miami
- Ms. Sharon Dixon, 3536 Rockerman, Miami
- Ms. Barbara Peterson-Malesci, 5900 SW 123 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Gabriel Miguel, 2251 SW 127 Street, Miami
- Ms. Vivianne Kassin, 10040 SW 97 Street, Miami
- Mr. Jose Moreira, 11850 SW 45 Street, Miami

Seeing no other persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item, Chairman Monestime closed the public hearing.

Following rebuttal comments made by Mr. Juan Mayol, Esquire, Holland and Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, he concluded that the redevelopment of this shopping center would fulfill the needs of the residents. He noted the attempt to negotiate in providing and educational facility within the property, followed by presenting letters of intent. Mr. Mayol urged the Board to approve Application No. 3.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the County Code required applicants who proposed particular uses submit a declaration of restrictions that addressed those uses. He noted he pointed this out because the majority of the discussion was about a shopping center and the covenant submitted by the applicant would allow it; however, he wanted to note for the record that the covenant did not require one and there being a re-designation of the proposal was for business and office. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised there was nothing in the covenant that would preclude them from developing, such as doctor�s offices. There were significant limitations on the type of commercial development that could be made; however, there was no guarantee this would be a shopping center with the type of retail uses that have been focused on including the rebuttal by the applicant�s attorney.

Mr. Mayol noted that he did not mention any specific uses, but gave an example the uses that could be developed on the property from a long list of uses that were prohibited in order to keep in line with the character of the area. He also noted there was a provision that would require the site plan that would be specific in design, which would be the proper time to determine the actual use of the property. Mr. Mayol stated the intent was not to develop an office complex on this property and that retail use was mostly needed in the area. He offered to exclude office use from the declaration if that was the Board�s request.

Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the fact that there would only be four members present for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting tomorrow; therefore a quorum would not be present.

Commissioner Souto noted how careful he was in moving forward with this proposal by reaching out to the voters and he read the contents of a letter that was sent to the residents of HC with the approval of the County Attorney�s Office ask for feedback regarding support in changing this land use to allow commercial use. He presented the stack of written responses from the 184 residents who opposed this proposal and the 29 residents who supported it; therefore he concluded that he would support the recommendation by the County staff and the Community Council.

Vice-Chairman Bovo chaired the meeting in the absence of Chairman Monestime.

It was moved by Commissioner Souto that Application No. 3 be denied and to deny the transmittal resolution 3C1. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava, followed by a discussion.

Commissioner Suarez noted he was in support of Commissioner Souto�s motion and the need to conclude the Community Council and staff�s recommendation. He read the following recommendations into the record:
- Notwithstanding the projected depletion of commercial land and MSA 6.1 there was no demonstrated need for neighborhood serving commercial development as proposed in the application that justified the potential the litigious impacts to the rural character of the HC community.

(Supply and Demand Analysis)
- In 2015 the analysis on MSA 6.1 contained 525.10 acres of active commercial uses and 33.3 acres land zoned was designated for commercial uses. The annual average of absorption rate for 2015 to 2030 was 6.9 acres per year and the projected rate of absorption MSA 6.1 would deplete its supply of commercially zoned by 2020.

Commissioner Suarez pointed out there was plenty of time before reaching this analysis based on the demand and supply. He spoke about the principle reasons for the recommendation by the staff was that the application proposed a small land use plan for approximately a 10 acre site within the HC community, but it was inconsistent with the agriculture designation of the area and was detrimental to the unique character of the community. Commissioner Suarez further stated that this proposal based on the growth management criteria did not comport with the purposes established in the County Master Plan and in the analysis of Supply and Demand as well as the Community Council; therefore, he concurred with Commissioner Souto vote.

Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Assistant County Attorney Kerbel regarding this process and the effect of this transmittal that would send the proposal to various State agencies in order to receive feedback in a few months, followed by coming back to this Board for a final public hearing to determine whether to adopt it.

In response to Commissioner Diaz question regarding the type of feedback received from State agencies, Mr. Woerner noted very little feedback was received within the past three years. He provided some examples, such as the Department of Education that would conduct a review to identify any education impacts or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would determine any impacts to State roadways in the area if it was not identified by the staff analysis, and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would identify any environmental issues on this site. He also noted the Department of Economic Opportunity formerly known as Department of Community Affairs that reviewed the land use from a statewide prospective that would be consistent with State law in addition to identifying any other violation within the Community Planning Act.

Commissioner Diaz noted his understanding concerning both groups of residents in the area that opposed or supported this application; however, this Board needed to identify the most beneficial solution for this community. He said at first he did not want to approve anything that was not agricultural related or not with the area designation.

In response to Commissioner Diaz question regarding whether this site was zoned for a school, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised a public school could be installed by the County School Board was a different process and the public hearing would be held as well as the required process. He also advised that a Charter or Private School would require going through the County zoning process or a special exception hearing.

Commissioner Diaz recalled today�s (11/18) meeting discussion mainly focused on animals, rather than schools, or churches, but he believed those were the most growing entities in the area. He also noted he heard about the Charrette that would be put in place to determine what was best in that area. Commissioner Diaz pointed out that the owner would decide based on the best business investment, but the balance would be to consider the quality of life. He also pointed out that although the staff recommendation was to deny the applicant did not reveal the plans of development except that they would not develop offices.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the current covenant did not provide development of offices therefore if it became an issue an amended covenant would be needed.

In response to Commissioner Diaz, Mr. Woerner noted there were five Charter schools and three schools associated with churches in HC. He also noted the Charrette was requested by Commissioner Souto.

Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Mr. Mayol regarding the fact that there were 11 existing schools with a combined total of approximately 3,988 students and the need for a transmittal would not suffice to identify the opportunities unless there was a Charrette in place.

Commissioner Souto noted that although he requested the Charrette he wanted to address the issue at hand that was a separate issue.

Commissioner Levine Cava expressed her concern of not receiving the results from the Charrette and that any action would be premature. She noted the need to acknowledge the citizen participation process that was evident by today�s (11/18) public appearance of great show of concern. She commended the public for taking steps and expressing concerns that led to today�s discussion.

Commissioner Levine Cava noted that the Charrette process was promised as a place where these issues could be vetted and people would have the opportunity to give feedback to determine the true facts. She noted that while this was isolated from the larger portion of agriculture area in South Dade, HC was well known to be worth preserving and the concern was more about the encroachment and the domino effect if this Board gave into short-term concerns.

Commissioner Sosa pointed out that no one knows each district better than its commissioner and the request for the Charrette was by the community and the timeframe was implemented in an organized way. She said she would support the motion made by Commissioner Souto.

Vice Chairman Bovo noted for the record that he grew up in HC and observed how nursery businesses took advantage of the agricultural use in this area while it was actually for commercial use. He spoke about the growth of churches and schools and how HC had changed. Vice Chairman Bovo noted he wanted there to be a transmittal along with a denial of the application to progressively determine what the development would be to help eliminate some of the traffic issues; however, he would support Commissioner Souto.

Chairman Monestime resumed the chair.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the include Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented; and the withdrawal of the proposed resolution 3C1.

The Board denied Application No.3 as recommended by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3C1 for Application No. 3.

Mr. Woerner Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department provided a legal description of this small scale site located in Commission District 10 on the SE corner of 127th Avenue and Miller Road that was approximately one acre. He said the request was a small scale amendment to re-designate the property from agriculture to business and office. Mr. Woerner noted the County staff recommendation was a denial as well as the Community Council; however, the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) recommended transmittal as a standard application with the acceptance of the proffered covenant without a recommendation on whether to adopt or to deny the application.

Mr. Woerner noted Application No. 3 proposal for a small scale amendment within the Horse Country community was inconsistent with the agriculture designation of the area and was detrimental to its unique character. He spoke of the history of similar application for this land use was filed in April, 2012, which received the same recommendations by staff and the Community Council; and was withdrawn before being presented to the PAB or this Commission. Mr. Woerner commented on the history of how this community retained its rural character of the only existing two square mile area inside of urban development boundary (UDB) that has been protected and preserved in line with recommendations from the Bird Kendall Ranch Study from 1975 and West Dade Ranch Area Study adopted by this Board in 1981.

Mr. Woerner spoke of the provisions of the agriculture land uses, such as plant nurseries, landscape supply companies, horse riding, and Boarding Academy and was consistent with this agriculture designation. He also noted there was large lot rural residential development that was permitted within this area.

Mr. Woerner stated approval this application based on the staff�s view would set a president and set a catalyst for future non-agricultural land use map amendments on land within the Horse Country. He reiterated the reasons why this application request for the future did not demonstrate proper consideration of the unique character of the Horse Country area as required by the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) policy LU-8E although the applicant indicated the site request was consistent with the guidelines for urban form. Mr. Woerner noted these guidelines were was listed in the CDMP Plan as an adopted policy regarding within the residential community designation category that listed the location of different residential land use categories particularly identifying the four corners of section line roads of major intersections and the commercial nodes should be a part of that urban form. However, he pointed out that in this case the guidelines for urban form did not apply.

Mr. Woerner reported this proposal for urbanization of land within this rural Horse Country community should not be used to address commercial land use deficiencies in the urbanized portion of this area. He noted the location of the commercial land was within a mile of this site and a million square feet of other commercial land in use surrounding that area. Mr. Woerner explained that the covenant submitted by the applicant would prohibit residential development on this site and would limit it to 75,000 square feet development in addition to restrictions on about 46 different types of commercial uses. He said there was a provision for minimum set-backs that would be approximately 40 feet larger or wider from the southern boundary property and a limited point of sale signs and size. He also noted this covenant required a type of architectural design as part of the site plan with an approval process that would maintain an equestrian design in architectural expressions and features.

Mr. Woerner noted in rebuttal to representations made pertaining to this site regarding the small amount of agriculture in the area, and noted it was not a typical agricultural area although there were not road crops grown there were other agricultural activities. He pointed out that approximately 60 percent of the properties in this area have an agricultural classification. Mr. Woerner explained that approximately 22 institutional uses were approved since 1960 to develop churches and schools mainly located on 72 Street and along 127th Avenue. He further explained very few were approved after that time followed by the Board adopting Resolution R-605-15 that directed the Mayor or designee to organize a Charrette for Horse Country to be completed by January 2016 at which a report would be due on the status.

Mr. Woerner noted the need for public input to share the community�s vision for its development and to be presented in the required Charrette before approving this change of land use. He said his view of this was a separate application that should be based on its own merit whether the Charrette was completed or not. He reiterated the recommendations aforementioned.

Mr. Juan Mayol, Esquire, Holland and Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of the Ferber Company, Application No. 3 and noted there were a number of supporters that were outside of the chambers. He asked that the representatives for Applications 7, 8, and 9 that had not been called to offer their seats to a group from a Coconut Grove.

Chairman Monestime said there was system in place therefore, he would call the names in groups of 6 and the Sergeant-of-Arms could escort those persons who wished to speak on the item because seating arrangement was on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Mr. Mayol presented a Power Point presentation on the subject property and pointed out the heavy traffic that occurred around this area on Miller Road. He spoke of the applicant�s years of experience in building retail offices and the different efforts made in reaching out to the public for input. Mr. Mayol commented on the number of supporters who signed petitions that totaled 2,855 in District 10.

Mr. Mayol noted this application request was not an attempt to change the master plan or expand non-negotiable business use for the Horse Country area. He commented on the objection campaign that was digital that provided misinformation. Mr. Mayol pointed out because the population had increased in Horse Country the services in that area were not at the same level. He continued with the Power Point presentation on the following subjects:

- Location: The Intersection of Two Section line roads
- Historical View (1975)
- West Dade Ranch Study Area-Where are the trails?
- 1975 Perspective
- Agricultural Designation Does Not Match Reality
- Steady Population Growth
- Horse Country Today at a Glance
- Where are the Agricultural uses? Residential is the Predominant Land Use
1. 29 Institutional uses
- Rural Neighborhood? View from the Property
- Abundant �Retail� Uses
- Urban Corridors/Where are the trails?
- 4,000 Students
- Institutional and Commercial Uses on the Northside/Southside of Miller Road
- Few Equestrian Uses- Thrive on Interior Roadways away from Miller Road
- 63 percent of Employees in Churches and Schools/ 18 percent in Agriculture
- Review Factors in Policy LU-8E
- Consequences of Deficiency � Increased Traffic Congestion
1. No Available Parking Spaces
- Lack of Vacant Commercial Land/Too Far to Provide Relief
- Application Meets All the Standards
- Major Transportation Corridors
- Case Study: Neighborhood Serving Retail is Compatible in Agricultural Areas
- Twelve Commercially Designated Corners Outside of the UDB in the Area/Why not here?
- Declaration of Restrictions

In conclusion, Mr. Mayo noted this application applied to a single parcel of land that has gone through an exhausting review process and urged the Board members to support Application No. 3. He noted there would be copies of those petitions for the record and he asked the people who were in support of this application to stand to be recognized.

Discussion ensued among the Board members and Attorneys representing the community organizations regarding the process in allowing everyone the opportunity to speak on this item.

Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised and noted for the record that Mr. Miguel DeGrandy was representing an organized group of neighborhood supporters, which was similar representation by Mr. Gibbs for the organized group of neighborhood objectors. He suggested that during the public hearing the Board could allow Mr. DeGrandy to represent and identify those persons who filled out speaker cards.

Chairman Monestime announced that he would call the speakers from the speaker cards he received. He pointed out that this same application request was rejected three years ago by Community Council 11, followed by a withdrawal.

Commissioner Zapata arrived at 11:13 a.m.

Mr. Tucker Gibbs 3835 Utopia Court, Coconut Grove, representing the Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association spoke in opposition of this application and asked those persons whom he represented to stand in order to be recognized.

Mr. Mark Alvarez, 3109 Grand Avenue, Miami, also appeared before the Board on behalf of the Bird Kendall Homeowners Association and presented a Power Point addressing the following subjects:
- CDMP Policy LU-8E (criteria)
1. Deficiency (MSA 6.1)
- Existing Land Use
- Land use Perspective
- What is Horse Country?
- Summary of Studies since 1975
- To Protect, Conserve and Foster
- Staff Recommendation : Deny
- No Basis for Amendment
- Amendment is Inconsistent with CDMP
- Horse Country Land Use Amendment
1. Incompatible
2. Inconsistent

Commissioner Bovo left the meeting at 11:48 a.m.

Mr. Miguel DeGrandy, 701 Brickell Avenue appeared before the Board on behalf of Horse Country Residents United Association Homeowners in support of Application No. 3. He also asked that all resident students from Horse Country stand to be recognized because of the large number of approximately 4,000 students who were transported to Horse Country to attend school.

Chairman Monestime opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item.

The following persons appeared before the Board in support the foregoing Application No. 3:

- Mr. Guillermo Cuadra, 3250 NE First Ave, Miami, on behalf of Carlos Curbelo and Neighbors
- Mr. Victor Hugo Lerzano, 6421 SW 136 Court, Miami (Assisted by Translator)
- Ms. Leydi Martinero, 13060 SW 64 Terrace, Miami
- Mr. Tom Rementeria, 14132 SW 154th Court, Miami
- Ms. Maria Paz, 6224 SW 131 Court, Miami
- Ms. Annabelle Lastre, 301 NW 109 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Jesus Topid, 12863 SW 65 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Betty Gayon, 5700 SW 108 Court, Miami (Assisted by Translator)
- Ms. Katherine Gavivia, 5630 SW 108 Court, Miami
- Ms. Maria Tejeda, 6229 SW 131 Place, Miami (Assisted by Translator)
- Ms. Isabel Lithman, 7901 SW 57th Terrace, Miami (Not a resident in HC)
- Ms. Claire Barebell, 11267 SW 33 Street, noted she was misled and wished to support the foregoing item.
- Mr. Farid Chehab, 2801 Florida Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Susan Hutson, 5221 SW 132 SW 132 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Jack Tierney, 5600 SW 118 Avenue, Miami

The following persons appeared before the Board in opposition of Application No. 3:

- Mr. Michael Rosenberg, 13030 N. Calusa Club Drive, Miami
- Ms. Annette Taddeo, 6460 SW 133 Drive, Miami
- Mr. Ernie Thomas, 6050 SW 120 Avenue, Miami

Commissioner Sosa requested that the speakers along with providing their address inform the Board as to whether they reside in Horse Country (HC).

The following persons continued to speak in opposition of the foregoing item:

- Ms. Ana Rosa Tazio, 425 Woodcrest Road, Key Biscayne (Not a resident in HC)
- Mr. Alex Sierra, 5870 SW 120 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Michael Miller, 11923 SW 45 Street, Miami on behalf of Bird-Kendall Homeowners Association and the following persons yielded their time to speak to Mr. Miller:
-
1. Ms. Teresita Marin Sierra, 5870 SW 120 Avenue, Miami
2. Mr. Robert Shockey, 12490 SW 46 Street, Miami
3. Ms. Debby Sessions, 11900 SW 46 Street, Miami
4. Mr. Ron Weeks, 11840 SW 47 Street, Miami
5. Ms. Migdalia Arteaga, 6700 SW 123 Avenue, Miami

Chairman Monestime asked for the sake of consistency whether questioning the speakers were residents of HC was consistent with the requirements since he did not ask the previous speakers this question at the beginning of today�s (11/18) meeting.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the question was to identify the neighborhood and it was acceptable.

Commissioner Diaz noted that residents located across from HC were notified of this application because they would be impacted as well. He said he believed questioning whether they reside in HC was to identify those persons living in the proximity of the area.

The following persons appeared before the Board and spoke in opposition of the foregoing item:
- Mr. Mario Hernandez, 12355 SW 64 Street, Miami
- Pastor Marc Mortensaw, 5801 SW 120th Ave, Miami

- Mr. Lorenzo Palomares, Esquire, 2333 Brickell Avenue, appeared before the Board and spoke on behalf of the Florida Paso Fino Association and the following persons:

1. Mr. Manuel Alvarez, 8401 Dundee Terrace, Miami
2. Mr. Albert Couto, 12350 SW 64th Street, Miami
3. Mr. Jorge Pinera, 12475 SW 45 Street, Miami
4. Ms. Lisa Vale, 6961 SW 62 Street, Miami
5. Mr. Arealio (Phonic) Arteaga. 6700 SW 123 Avenue

The following persons appeared before the Board and spoke in opposition of Application No. 3:

- Mr. Tom Worrell, 6200 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Pam Shockey, 12490 SW 46 Street, Miami
- Ms. Carol Vega, 5801 SW 125 Avenue, Miami, spoke on behalf of Bird Kendall Homeowners Association
- South Miami Commissioner Bob Welsh, 7437 SW 64 Court, Miami
- Mr. Humberto Triana, 6211 SW 116 Place, Miami
- Ms. Helen Diaz, 6221 SW 58 Street, Miami
- Mr. Gary Malfeld, Esq. 13251 SW 68 Terrace, Miami
- Mr. Mariano Migel, 12220 SW 45 Street, Miami
- Ms. Cheri Gillies, 6600 SW 122 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Raine Calva, 5603 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Erin Bauer, 6105 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Eric Cohen, 6701 SW 125 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Joseph Zahcalban, 6660 SW 125 Ave, Miami
- Ms. Sharon Dixon, 3536 Rockerman, Miami
- Ms. Barbara Peterson-Malesci, 5900 SW 123 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Gabriel Miguel, 2251 SW 127 Street, Miami
- Ms. Vivianne Kassin, 10040 SW 97 Street, Miami
- Mr. Jose Moreira, 11850 SW 45 Street, Miami

Seeing no other persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item, Chairman Monestime closed the public hearing.

Following rebuttal comments made by Mr. Juan Mayol, Esquire, Holland and Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, he concluded that the redevelopment of this shopping center would fulfill the needs of the residents. He noted the attempt to negotiate in providing and educational facility within the property, followed by presenting letters of intent. Mr. Mayol urged the Board to approve Application No. 3.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the County Code required applicants who proposed particular uses submit a declaration of restrictions that addressed those uses. He noted he pointed this out because the majority of the discussion was about a shopping center and the covenant submitted by the applicant would allow it; however, he wanted to note for the record that the covenant did not require one and there being a re-designation of the proposal was for business and office. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised there was nothing in the covenant that would preclude them from developing, such as doctor�s offices. There were significant limitations on the type of commercial development that could be made; however, there was no guarantee this would be a shopping center with the type of retail uses that have been focused on including the rebuttal by the applicant�s attorney.

Mr. Mayol noted that he did not mention any specific uses, but gave an example the uses that could be developed on the property from a long list of uses that were prohibited in order to keep in line with the character of the area. He also noted there was a provision that would require the site plan that would be specific in design, which would be the proper time to determine the actual use of the property. Mr. Mayol stated the intent was not to develop an office complex on this property and that retail use was mostly needed in the area. He offered to exclude office use from the declaration if that was the Board�s request.

Discussion ensued among the Board regarding the fact that there would only be four members present for the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting tomorrow; therefore a quorum would not be present.

Commissioner Souto noted how careful he was in moving forward with this proposal by reaching out to the voters and he read the contents of a letter that was sent to the residents of HC with the approval of the County Attorney�s Office ask for feedback regarding support in changing this land use to allow commercial use. He presented the stack of written responses from the 184 residents who opposed this proposal and the 29 residents who supported it; therefore he concluded that he would support the recommendation by the County staff and the Community Council.

Vice-Chairman Bovo chaired the meeting in the absence of Chairman Monestime.

It was moved by Commissioner Souto that Application No. 3 be denied and to deny the transmittal resolution 3C1. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Levine Cava, followed by a discussion.

Commissioner Suarez noted he was in support of Commissioner Souto�s motion and the need to conclude the Community Council and staff�s recommendation. He read the following recommendations into the record:
- Notwithstanding the projected depletion of commercial land and MSA 6.1 there was no demonstrated need for neighborhood serving commercial development as proposed in the application that justified the potential the litigious impacts to the rural character of the HC community.

(Supply and Demand Analysis)
- In 2015 the analysis on MSA 6.1 contained 525.10 acres of active commercial uses and 33.3 acres land zoned was designated for commercial uses. The annual average of absorption rate for 2015 to 2030 was 6.9 acres per year and the projected rate of absorption MSA 6.1 would deplete its supply of commercially zoned by 2020.

Commissioner Suarez pointed out there was plenty of time before reaching this analysis based on the demand and supply. He spoke about the principle reasons for the recommendation by the staff was that the application proposed a small land use plan for approximately a 10 acre site within the HC community, but it was inconsistent with the agriculture designation of the area and was detrimental to the unique character of the community. Commissioner Suarez further stated that this proposal based on the growth management criteria did not comport with the purposes established in the County Master Plan and in the analysis of Supply and Demand as well as the Community Council; therefore, he concurred with Commissioner Souto vote.

Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Assistant County Attorney Kerbel regarding this process and the effect of this transmittal that would send the proposal to various State agencies in order to receive feedback in a few months, followed by coming back to this Board for a final public hearing to determine whether to adopt it.

In response to Commissioner Diaz question regarding the type of feedback received from State agencies, Mr. Woerner noted very little feedback was received within the past three years. He provided some examples, such as the Department of Education that would conduct a review to identify any education impacts or the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would determine any impacts to State roadways in the area if it was not identified by the staff analysis, and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would identify any environmental issues on this site. He also noted the Department of Economic Opportunity formerly known as Department of Community Affairs that reviewed the land use from a statewide prospective that would be consistent with State law in addition to identifying any other violation within the Community Planning Act.

Commissioner Diaz noted his understanding concerning both groups of residents in the area that opposed or supported this application; however, this Board needed to identify the most beneficial solution for this community. He said at first he did not want to approve anything that was not agricultural related or not with the area designation.

In response to Commissioner Diaz question regarding whether this site was zoned for a school, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised a public school could be installed by the County School Board was a different process and the public hearing would be held as well as the required process. He also advised that a Charter or Private School would require going through the County zoning process or a special exception hearing.

Commissioner Diaz recalled today�s (11/18) meeting discussion mainly focused on animals, rather than schools, or churches, but he believed those were the most growing entities in the area. He also noted he heard about the Charrette that would be put in place to determine what was best in that area. Commissioner Diaz pointed out that the owner would decide based on the best business investment, but the balance would be to consider the quality of life. He also pointed out that although the staff recommendation was to deny the applicant did not reveal the plans of development except that they would not develop offices.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that the current covenant did not provide development of offices therefore if it became an issue an amended covenant would be needed.

In response to Commissioner Diaz, Mr. Woerner noted there were five Charter schools and three schools associated with churches in HC. He also noted the Charrette was requested by Commissioner Souto.

Discussion ensued between Commissioner Diaz and Mr. Mayol regarding the fact that there were 11 existing schools with a combined total of approximately 3,988 students and the need for a transmittal would not suffice to identify the opportunities unless there was a Charrette in place.

Commissioner Souto noted that although he requested the Charrette he wanted to address the issue at hand that was a separate issue.

Commissioner Levine Cava expressed her concern of not receiving the results from the Charrette and that any action would be premature. She noted the need to acknowledge the citizen participation process that was evident by today�s (11/18) public appearance of great show of concern. She commended the public for taking steps and expressing concerns that led to today�s discussion.

Commissioner Levine Cava noted that the Charrette process was promised as a place where these issues could be vetted and people would have the opportunity to give feedback to determine the true facts. She noted that while this was isolated from the larger portion of agriculture area in South Dade, HC was well known to be worth preserving and the concern was more about the encroachment and the domino effect if this Board gave into short-term concerns.

Commissioner Sosa pointed out that no one knows each district better than its commissioner and the request for the Charrette was by the community and the timeframe was implemented in an organized way. She said she would support the motion made by Commissioner Souto.

Vice Chairman Bovo noted for the record that he grew up in HC and observed how nursery businesses took advantage of the agricultural use in this area while it was actually for commercial use. He spoke about the growth of churches and schools and how HC had changed. Vice Chairman Bovo noted he wanted there to be a transmittal along with a denial of the application to progressively determine what the development would be to help eliminate some of the traffic issues; however, he would support Commissioner Souto.

Chairman Monestime resumed the chair.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the include Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented; and the withdrawal of the proposed resolution 3C1.

The Board denied Application No.3 as recommended by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.
 
  11/3/2015 Adopted on first reading by the Board of County Commissioners  
  11/3/2015 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners  
3C1  
  152647 Resolution      
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 3, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 56 STREET AND SW 127 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 3; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
Resolution
Mover: Sen. Javier D. Souto
Seconder: Daniella Levine Cava
Vote: 12 - 0
Absent: Heyman
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 3C, Legislative File No. 152497  
3D  
  152498 Ordinance   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 4, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SW 132 AVENUE AND �300 FEET NORTH OF SW 136 STREET, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Ordinance 15-137
Mover: Dennis C. Moss
Seconder: Barbara J. Jordan
Vote: 10 - 1
No: Suarez
Absent: Monestime , Heyman
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3D1 for Application No. 4.

Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department provided a summary of Application No. 4 on the subject property located in District 9 that was a small scale amendment consisting of approximately 10 acres. He noted the request was to re-designate the property from industrial and office to office residential.

Mr. Woerner stated the recommendation by staff was denial while the West Kendall Community Council recommended adoption as well as Planning Advisory Board. He also stated there was no covenant related to this application as of yesterday evening; however, there was a covenant that he believed the applicant would distribute in today�s (11/18) meeting.

Mr. Woerner further explained that Application No. 4 proposal for residential development would be incompatible with the operations nearby Miami Executive Airport (MEA) and was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) in Section 33-395 of the land use zoning classifications for airports in this County. He pointed out that over half the application site was approximately six acres and located within the outer safety zone for runway 9R27L of the MEA where residential development was limited in density to two units per acre or less. Mr. Woerner noted the application did not address the potential negative impact that would occur on residential development by the neighboring airport should this application be approved as well as the negative effect of supply of residential land; however, if not unrestricted approximately 110 dwelling units could be built on this parcel.

Mr. Woerner advised that the CDMP land use element LU3B and Aviation Sub Element AB5Q required the County to protect uses, such as industrial use that would generate significant noise, dust, odor, vibration, and truck or rail traffic from damaging encroachment by future approval of new incompatible use, such as residential uses and to maximize compatibility of land use around County airports, therefore, the request of re-designation of the application site office residential was inconsistent with those policies.

Mr. Woerner stated that other than being incompatible there were no issues with other public services or facilities. He spoke about the location of the subject property that was surrounded by industrial or warehouse like uses, businesses and business parks; in addition to a residential development property that was approved many years ago prior to policies and the CDMP changes that limited the impact of residential areas located in industrial areas as this. Mr. Woerner emphasized the concerns of this application and that the covenant was just received the day before this meeting therefore he asked that the applicant provide this information.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel informed the Board that the applicant would arrive shortly and suggested to either continue the deliberations without hearing from the applicant or to move to the next item and come back to this item later.

Chairman Monestime noted that the Board would continue this item and hopefully the applicant of the foregoing item would arrive before Application No. 6.

Later in the meeting Mr. Felix Lasarte appeared before the Board and noted that Mr. Robert Holland would be making the presentation and had not arrived yet.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reread the foregoing proposed item and Agenda 3D1.

In the absence of Chairman Monestime, Vice Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item.

Mr. Felix Lasarte, 3250 NE 1st Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of Application No. 4 and made a presentation. He noted this proposal was to re-designate this property from industrial and office space to office residential on the areas outside of the airport safety zone. Mr. Lasarte pointed out the surrounding business properties and although the area was classified as industrial he noted this small segment was more like a suburban type area. He stated this area was zoned as industrial for over 9 years; however there was no demand for that type of product. Mr. Lasarte said the declaration of restricted covenants were submitted that provided notices to the future buyers of this property that there would airplanes overhead and there could be no protest for runway expansions. He said these series of restrictions guaranteed the airport�s rights were protected as well as the language that would build the homes with a certain decimal level.

Mr. Lasarte reviewed the process in submitting these documents to Miami Dade Aviation, and noted he was advised that the wrong name was on the document, which should have been listed as Miami Executive. He spoke of the support from the community that included 500 residents.
Mr. Robert Holland, 3250 NE 1 Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board and noted this land was owned by the current owners for 15 years and requested this property to be rezoned as industrial in hope to attempt to move to industrial capacity. He explained the burden of the owner carrying the cost of the debt on this land and paying the taxes, etc., and reached the point to the current market for residential, which was the request for change. Mr. Holland noted the initial application addressed the whole swap of land, but had been amended to only seek residential on the front part of that land in respect of the airport highway safety zone to only do office and business in that area. He commented on the property being a mixed use and referred to the success of other similar properties, such as the Doral area. Mr. Holland noted the negotiations that took place to accommodate the residential and businesses to bring about a good product. He pointed out there was no opposition from the residents as well as favor from the Community Council.

Mr. Anthony Recio, Law Office of 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of Venezia Lakes Homeowners Association, and spoke in favor of the foregoing item.

Mr. Woerner reiterated that the recommendation by the staff was still denial and noted that the proffer of this covenant was just received. He also noted concerns regarding the covenant not clearly indicating the number of units being built and which portion of property would this development occur. He said the 60 percent portion that was already covered by the outer safety zone was in question and whether there would be residential there at two units per acre or would it be business or offices. He questioned the plans for the other three percent and noted the primary concern was related to the compatibility issue because the location was in the middle of an industrial area. Mr. Woerner asked upon approval of this application that the Board receive clarification to the questions he posed. He pointed out other circumstances that have been approved in the past several years were located further away from the airport and outside of this outer safety zone, but required similar decimal reductions, in terms of construction, and once this land was converted it would be gone.

Commissioner Moss reviewed the staff�s recommendation and noted there were a number of residential developments that were approved in this area and the repeated occurrences of applications that projects have not been completed. He pointed out some of the locations that had developments underway, such as in the area of Jackson South and another development by Lennar Construction. Commissioner Moss noted there was a current Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) that was in that areas looking into the ability to perhaps incorporate and when there were potential cities it was important to ensure there was a base of commercial and industrial to support that city. He spoke of several past applications to build an annex for additional commercial and industrial property because the importance for sustainability and environment ability of cities was understood.

Commissioner Moss pointed out that once this investor land was designated it would be gone and the limited areas in District 9, such as Tamiami, which was his reason to preserve as much industrial and commercial land for the residents because that was where the jobs were created.
He also pointed out this was the area of the new Miami Executive Airport and the need to preserve the surrounding land. Commissioner Moss spoke of looking forward to extending the operational hours because he had received complaints from residents; therefore he would support the staff�s recommendation for a denial.

Mr. Lasarte emphasized that this land was zoned industrial and has been ready for development since 2006; therefore, although there was limited industrial land, but this would not work well because of the type of business distribution centers needed and the required locations and space based on logistics. He offered to develop some offices and residential.

Commissioner Moss reiterated his recommendation and noted the need to preserve this land for future industrial development needs.

It was moved by Commissioner Moss that Application No. 4 be denied. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Jordan, followed by a discussion.

Commissioner Levine Cava concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Moss and added that because of the lack of industrial space in this area was why the request was given to move the urban development boundary (UDB). She urged the Board to identify a way to make these spaces work and be desirable without impacting the UDB.

Commissioner Suarez commented on the changes regarding desired zoning as well as the planning zoning concepts. He expressed his concern and referred back to comments pertaining to preserving areas for industrial use in a City that needed more commercial, office space. Commissioner Suarez noted that he believed this application was what was needed in this area and was in support of the application.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented; and the withdrawal of the proposed resolution 3D1.

The Board denied Application No.4 as recommended by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.
 
  11/3/2015 Adopted on first reading by the Board of County Commissioners  
  11/3/2015 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners  
3D1  
  152650 Resolution      
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 4, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SW 132 AVENUE AND �300 FEET NORTH OF SW 136 STREET; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 4; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
Resolution
Mover: Dennis C. Moss
Seconder: Barbara J. Jordan
Vote: 10 - 1
No: Suarez
Absent: Monestime , Heyman
  REPORT: See Agenda Item 3D, Legislative File No. 152498  
3E  
  152499 Ordinance   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 5, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 184 STREET AND SW 112 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Ordinance 15-138
Mover: Dennis C. Moss
Seconder: Barbara J. Jordan
Vote: 11 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Zapata
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3E1 for Application No. 5.

Chairman Monestime called for the representative of Application No. 5.

Mr. Juan Mayol Esquire, Holland and Knight , 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of Application No. 5 and noted the support of this application by the Community Council, County staff and Planning Advisory Board (PAB). He urged the Board members to approve this application with the proper covenant that limited the development to 30,000 square feet. Mr. Mayol spoke of filing for a zoning application process once approved by the Board.

Chairman Monestime opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item and seeing no one wished to speak on this item, he closed the public hearing.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance as presented with the proffered covenant; and to withdraw the proposed transmittal resolution 3E1.

The Board adopted Application No. 5 as recommended by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.
 
  11/3/2015 Adopted on first reading by the Board of County Commissioners  
  11/3/2015 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners  
3E1  
  152651 Resolution      
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 5, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 184 STREET AND SW 112 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 5; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
Resolution
Mover: Dennis C. Moss
Seconder: Barbara J. Jordan
Vote: 11 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Zapata
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 3E, Legislative File No. 152499  
3F  
  152501 Ordinance   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 6, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SW 200 STREET AND SW 177 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Ordinance 15-139
Mover: Daniella Levine Cava
Seconder: Dennis C. Moss
Vote: 10 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Suarez , Zapata
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 3F1 for Application No. 6

Ms. Tracy Slavens Esquire, Holland and Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami appeared before the Board representing Application No. 6, Otto and Barbara Kaufmann. She spoke of recommendations of approval from County staff; Community Council and Planning Advisory Board (PAB). Ms. Slavens requested that the application be amended to read 2.7 acres, rather than 2.5 acres to accommodate the widening of Krome Avenue and a limited access rite away that would expand the access slightly to the north; therefore the boundary needed an extension for the business and office space.

Ms. Slavens provided a Power Point presentation of the subject property location that was currently designated at 2.5 acres at the Northeast corner of Krome Avenue and Quail Roost Drive, which part of the larger nine acre parcel. She pointed out that the property would be shrunk by an acre in size because of the widening of Krome Avenue that would take 70 feet from this property line and would impact the viability of the commercial node. Ms. Slavens also noted this property was part of three commercial nodes outside of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) intended to provide services, such as gas stations, and banks to residents in that rural area.

Discussion ensued between Assistant County Attorney Kerbel and Ms. Slaven regarding identifying the location of the additional acre on the Power Point map presentation that displayed the property line shifting slightly north and east by the inner red line notated on the eastern boundary 00 degrees 41 feet, 33 degrees east that included the addition.

Ms. Slavens noted she would provide a legal description and sketch to the County staff.

Chairman Monestime opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item and seeing no one wished to speak on this item, he closed the public hearing.

In response to Commissioner Sosa� s question regarding the location of the subject property being located outside of the UBD line, Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department explained that although it was the property was already a designated business node that was on the CDMP for about 30 years.

Discussion ensued between Commissioner Edmonson and Ms. Slavens regarding the fact that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) through eminent domain had taken some of this property from the landowner; therefore, this request to expand the property owner would give some of the property that was already deeded as commercial use.

Commissioner Levine Cava noted for clarification her support was for those reasons mentioned and that the property continues to be used with the same current zoning use.

In response to Chairman Monestime�s question regarding this application did not change the UDB line, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel concurred and noted that this would not affect the location of the existing UDB.

Chairman Monestime also concurred with comments made by Commissioner Edmonson regarding a portion of the property taken away from the landowner was being returned.

Discussion further ensued among the Board members, Ms. Slavens and staff regarding the current process of eminent domain proceedings with FDOT without moving the UDB line and the use of agriculture was being changed to business office only on the added portion of land.

Commissioner Levine Cava noted for the record there were no public objections made towards this application.

Hearing no further questions or comments the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed ordinance be adopted as presented; and the withdrawal of the proposed resolution 3F1.

The Board adopted Application No. 6, as amended, to expand the application site by 0.26 acres, which would not affect the urban development boundary as requested by the applicant.
 
  11/3/2015 Adopted on first reading by the Board of County Commissioners  
  11/3/2015 Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners  
3F1  
  152653 Resolution      
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 6, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION SW 200 STREET AND SW 177 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 6; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
Resolution
Mover: Daniella Levine Cava
Seconder: Dennis C. Moss
Vote: 10 - 0
Absent: Heyman , Suarez , Zapata
  REPORT: See Agenda Item 3F, Legislative File No. 152501  
4 STANDARD AMENDMENTS AT TRANSMITTAL  
4A  
  152643 Resolution   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 7, LOCATED BETWEEN SW 64 STREET AND SW 88 STREET AND BETWEEN SW 177 AVENUE AND SW 167 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 7; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Resolution R-1053-15
Mover: Juan C. Zapata
Seconder: Jose "Pepe" Diaz
Vote: 8 - 2
No: Diaz , Bovo, Jr.
Absent: Monestime , Heyman , Souto
  REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed resolution and the proposed companion ordinance Agenda Item 4A1 for Application No. 7.

Vice Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak on the foregoing item.

Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department provided a Power Point presentation and provided a summary of the current designated agricultural site of 131 acre site located in District 11 that would be divided into six development areas. He spoke on the following requested CDMP Amendments:
- Amend Land Use Element to create the �Green City Miami� land use category, page 7-16 to 7-21
- Expand the 2020 urban development boundary to include the site
- Designate approximately 819 gross acres from �Agriculture� to �Green City Miami� (excludes wellfield)
- Amend the LUP map designating new Urban Centers (Metropolitan and Community Urban Centers), page 7-14

- Amend Policy LU-8F of the CDMP Land Use Element, page 7-22
1. Require a 20 year Countywide residential land supply
- Create new Policy LU-8J in CDMP Land Use Element page 7-22 to 7-24
1. To provide for a Transit Oriented Village (TOV) Development (500-1,000 acres)
2. Approval as a planned unit development
3. Include a Metropolitan Urban Center
4. Affordable and Workforce Housing (10 percent of all units, 20 percent dedicated to affordable, 80 percent to workforce housing)
5. Transit stipends for eligible workers/transit voucher and van pool
- Amend Traffic Circulation Sub-element to change the designation of certain roadway segments; page 7-25 to 7-27

- Proposed Development
1. 11,401 residential units
2. Over 3.3 million square feet of non-residential development (includes: 1.3 million square feet of retail and 350,000 square feet of industrial)
3. Recent proffered covenant

- Staff recommendation for Application No. 7
- Deny and do not to transmit
- Community Council and the Planning Advisory Board (same recommendations)
- No Need for UDB Expansion (Main Reason for Denial) based on Policy (LU-8F)

- Application cites three reasons for Policy LU-8F change (not demonstrated)
1. Projection Error � in the County�s population projection
2. Six Year UDB Capacity is not adequate
3. The UDB policies affects �Housing Affordability�
- Growth of County�s population between 1994 to 2014: 550,108 persons
1. Residential units built during time period: 243,868
- Inadequate Jobs
1. Application projects 7,600 jobs to be generated
? Shortfall 6,831 jobs
? Policy LU-8H: Application did not meet standard
- New Policy proposed LU-8G
1. Large scale developments, 500 to 1,000 acres
? Less than 15 acres left
- Environmental Impacts
? Location was in west wellfield; CDMP requires protection of wellfields
? Subject to sewage loading restrictions, would exceed loading requirement by 200 percent
? Number of developments proposed would be significantly reduced

Mr. Woerner noted there was no need for this criteria or the need to amend that policy; therefore it did not justify this application. He further noted in terms of commercial land, the current countywide supply could sustain economic growth to 2030 and to 2028 within those tiers of the location study areas, which was 6.1 and 6.2. Mr. Woerner said the same supply conditions were in place for industrial land countywide to 2030 and to 2021 within those tiers.

Mr. Woerner spoke about the most significant area on Kendall Drive that had 4,500 units, as well as near the eastern border with 2,100 units. He expressed other concerns with service problems, roadways that would not meet standard, and the main concern was that staff believed this met the requirements for urban sprawl in the Florida statutes.

Mr. Brian May, 235 Catalonia Avenue, Coral Gables, appeared before the Board members representing Applicant No. 7 and recognized the different partners and consultants as well as 50 residents in support of the application. He noted this was the largest acreage in the Kendall Drive Corridor that was in the County�s Master Plan that was designated for urban expansion. Mr. May also noted this land was supposed to be a large scale, long-term mixed use master plan community that would create jobs and future growth as an anchor for the future of West Kendall area.

Mr. May agreed there were a number of changes in the proposed policy because of the large scale amendment and the need to address many of the policy and issues within the CDMP. He asked the Board members to view his presentation in that concept and consider the diverse mix use, such as retail, high tech jobs, recreation, etc., as well as over 220 acres of the 863 acres were green space. Mr. May said that much of this land was designed to protect the wellfields as well as the 100 acres of water waste throughout the project.

Mr. May pointed out that this proposal was demonstrated based on the Florida International University (FIU) Study, local Charrette, and a vision for the future by receiving input from the community in the past 3 years.

Mr. Mario Garcia, 600 Brickell Avenue, appeared before the Board representing Application No. 7 applicants and commented on growth management and the history of existing issues for 30 years, such as the multiple growths of single family home sub-divisions, and small shopping centers. He also spoke on the increased consensus among urban planners that the appropriate response to urban sprawl of mixed use and focus uses in a particular area to create town centers that would not require vehicle transportation for every activity, but create a sense of community.

Mr. Garcia opposed the existing policy and noted the following point in a Power Point presentation:
- Existing Situation in West Kendall
1. Lack of specialty retail and entertainment
2. Traffic gridlock
3. New housing becoming prohibitively expensive
4. Low density sub-divisions
- Potential solutions to Traffic and Affordability Issues
1. Longer-range planning for population growth
2. Mixed use projects within walking distance
3. Mass transit, easily accessible and reliable
4. Placing businesses within West Kendall with potential growth and create good paying jobs.
- What are not Potential Solutions?
1. Ignoring population growth
2. Whether redevelopment project in urban core will full address future housing demands
3. Planning for future growth with underestimated projections
- Aerial Photograph of West Kendall
1. Offices and Institutions
2. West Kendall Corridor Charrette�2013

Mr. Garcia commented on expanding the urban development boundaries (UDB) in these areas when needed. He also mentioned comments reported by the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago regarding the urban expansion area were the most underutilized policy tool for growth management. Mr. Garcia reiterated this mixed use property would be a catalyst for mass transit improvements and a means of resources as well as for new employment measures that would benefit the entire county.

Ms. Ann Polk, 15626 SW 111 Terrace, appeared before the Board and spoke in favor of Application No. 7 and reviewed the plans for the development of Green City.

Mr. Tim Plummer, President, David Plummer and Associates, 1750 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, appeared before the Board and spoke about the low density area of West Kendall and the low employment opportunities as well as the traffic congestion, which this initiative would help resolve.

In conclusion, Ms. Polk noted Green City would be beneficial to West Kendall, in terms of the environment by using less water, no pesticides, promoting natural rain water, and alternative energies as well as infrastructure methods to protect areas.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised there were a number of presentations made by the applicant regarding uses that would be put on this property as part of this project. He noted that the County Code required that any applicant making a representation needed to include a specific use or a specific prohibited use with a required covenant; however, in this case there was an extended text amendment with an accompanying covenant, but a number of representations that were made were listed uses that although allowed by the text and covenant were not required in the manner that the applicant presented them. He offered to provide this list in detail.

Vice Chairman Bovo noted he wanted to complete the public hearing, followed by this continued discussion to resolve this issue. He called the following persons who requested to speak and did not support this proposed item:
- Ms. Celeste De Palma, 4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami representing Audubon Florida
- Ms. Claudia Tencer, 90 SW 3rd Street, Miami
- Ms. Nancy Lee, 20448 NE 34 Court, Aventura
- Mr. Gary Held, 9226 SW 150 Avenue
- Ms. Arlene Samalion, 26251 SW 162 Avenue, Redland
- Ms. Natasha Naar, 900 Wallace Street, Coral Gables
- Ms. Julie Dick, 104 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, (Applications 7 and 8) representing Tropical Audubon Society Everglades Law Center
- Ms. Laura Reynolds, 5530 Sunset Drive, Miami representing Tropical Audubon Society and the Everglades Coalition (Applications 7 and 8)
- Ms. Valerie Robbin, 730 Palermo Avenue, Coral Gables, representing Sierra Club (Applications 7 and 8)
- Mr. John Chibbaro, 333 SE 2 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Belkis Gonzalez, 6445 SW 164 Avenue 50357

Vice Chairman Bovo noted that the remaining time to continue today�s meeting with a quorum was coming to an end and requested the County Attorney�s opinion on the process of a carry-over.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that upon closing the public hearing in today�s (11/18) the continuation of this would be picked up at the Board�s deliberation without requiring to reopen the public hearing for Applications 7 and 8.

Discussion ensued among the Board and the County Attorney�s Office regarding the process and concern to provide a fair opportunity for each speaker to be heard by allowing those persons to be heard who did not speak at today�s meeting as well as hearing a rebuttal from the applicant.

Mr. Garcia asked that Application 7 be resolved at today�s (11/18) meeting and suggested to hear from three speakers for a minimum of one minute each to condense the number of speakers.

Vice Chairman Bovo noted for the record that the speaker cards of those persons who gave up their time to speak would be documented on the record that they were present to speak on this item in support.

The following persons appeared before the Board to speak in support of Application 7:
- Ms. Esther Garvett, 10431 SW 143 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Robert Rivera, 10108 SW 166 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Alexandria Holloway, 11026-4 SW 132 Place, Miami

The following persons submitted speaker cards in support of the foregoing proposed Application 7 and did not speak during today�s (11/18) CDMP meeting:

- Mr. Victor Flores, 8828 SW 151 Court, Miami
- Ms. Leslie Cajigas, 11343 SW 146 Court, Miami
- Ms. Josephine Morgenstern, 11301 SW 146 Court, Miami
- Mr. Carlos Rodriguez, 11750 SW 171 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Thania Exposito, 14661 SW 114 Terrace, Miami
- Mr. Steven Exposito, 14661 SW 114 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Daniela Seiler, 13953 SW 66 Street, Miami
- Ms. Ronda Fleites, 10621 Hammocks Boulevard, Miami
- Ms. Aurora Beauchamp, 13771 SW 115 Lane, Miami
- Ms. Maureen Escobar, 13771 SW 115 Lane, Miami
- Mr. Jonan Morales, 8115 SW 158 Court, Miami
- Ms. Rosivette Santiago, 11323 SW 160 Place, Miami
- Ms. Alanna Dugee, 14401 SW 88 Street, Miami
- Ms. Joicie Ruiere, 10108 SW 166 Avenue, Miami
- Mr. Nadim Jamid, 16672 SW 79 Way, Miami
- Ms. Jeovanna Dominquez Valdivieso, 15222 SW 115 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Leila Harris, 10108 SW 166 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Giovanni Decastro, 10041 SW 162 Court, Miami
- Ms. Felton Harris, 10108 SW 166 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Ashley Martinez, 16672 SW 79 Way, Miami
- Mr. Andrew Steven Exposito, 14661 SW 114 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Rosalina Cajigus, 11301 SW 146 Court, Miami
- Mr. Manuel Cajigus, 11301 SW 146 Court, Miami
- Mr. Saul Beauchamp, 13771 SW 115 Lane, Miami
- Ms. Pamela Josephs, 13735 SW 100 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Suzette Knight, 13735 SW 100 Terrace, Miami
- Ms. Vicky Kei, 14462 SW 115 Street, Miami
- Mr. Alex Hernandez, 4519 SW 164 Place, Miami
- Mr. Jay Alvarez-Yairon, 15985 SW 140 Street, Miami
- Ms. Nichole Rodriguez, 14401 SW 88 Street, Miami
- Ms. Miraise Conde, 15599 SW 106 Lane, Miami
- Ms. Gloria Morgan, 8513 SW 147 Court, Miami

Mr. Garcia read a letter of support from Ms. Ana Lopez- Blazquez, Chief Executive Officer, Baptist Health Enterprises and submitted 57 letters of support to the Clerk�s Office for this project received from other organizations. He indicated that a covenant was submitted that regulates a residential development on the property, in terms of the number of units and the timeframe in occupying them each year. Mr. Garcia noted the applicant�s position on the representations made today, which was also in agreement with that covenant further incorporating the items that were submitted as part of the application as well as the presentations from today�s (11/18) meeting.

Mr. Garcia indicated that in terms of environmental concerns the applicant fully complied with Chapter 24 of the County Code regarding the wellfield protection in addition to not interfere with the comprehensive for Everglades� restoration. He mentioned the need for expansion of Expressway 836, and CSX rail line, which could be made possible through this project. Mr. Garcia also commented on the agricultural preservation would be met as well. He concluded by pointing out that the majority of residents during today�s meeting expressed the need for innovative ideas for the West area to address traffic issues and urged the Board members to listen to the residents. Mr. Garcia said that the transmittal was justified and the input from State agencies would account to the accuracy of this application.

Vice Chairman Bovo closed the public hearing.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted for the record the following list of uses presented as part of this project that were allowable, but not currently required by what was submitted to this Board to date:
- 220 acres of green space
- 100 acres of water ways
- Farmers market
- Retirement community for senior housing
- University
- Hotels
- Inter-mobile facility
- 500,000 square feet of community space
- K-12 grade school
- Big-box retailers
- Entertainment destination

Commissioner Zapata commented on issues of past community projects that did not follow through on promises and the issue of nonresidents dictating what would happen in those proposed areas; therefore, the residents in that area needed to speak up. He also commented on the challenges as the only local official for that unincorporated area and the steps taken to determine the possibilities and opportunities for that community. Commissioner Zapata mentioned some of the steps taken in planning, such as the Charrette process, Municipal Avisory Committee (MAC) process and he wanted to include the academic prospective. He noted the issue of lack of planning for this area by this County for this area. He said that he requested Florida International University (FIU) to conduct a study that resulted in several recommendations. Commissioner Zapata noted after reviewing the recommendations he concluded the future and quality of this area was dependent on how this County developed the remaining property, which required strategic planning and a good execution.

Additionally, Commissioner Zapata spoke of transit issues in that area and the need to identify a way to control the flow of traffic driving west in the morning and east in the afternoon because it would make better use of the existing infrastructure and resolve the issue at a low cost. He spoke of the plans for the Miami Airport and the surrounding circle that was supposed to be industrial, but developed into a residential community that was too common in the western part of this County. Commissioner Zapata said there was minimum quality of shopping areas and recreational activities in this area, therefore residents had to travel east for more opportunities. He noted the existing land should be beneficial to the residents.

Commissioner Zapata emphasized not to make the mistakes of the past by supporting projects that makes promises based only on the needs. He noted that he believed this application was premature and it was important to maintain persistence and be clear about objectives, therefore he was willing to have further discussion. Commissioner Zapata stressed that he was not interested in the residential component of this application, but he believed the idea of attracting businesses to the area would create a different kind of development that would contribute to counter flowing traffic that would litigate the issue of commuting during peak traffic hours.

Hearing no further questions or comments it was moved by Commissioner Zapata that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted and the application be transmitted to State with a recommendation to deny. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Diaz, and followed with a discussion.

Responding to Vice Chairman Bovo, Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised the transmittal would not move the urban development boundary; however, the recommendation of denial would signal to the State the Board's intention and to further consider the application.

Following further discussion, the Board proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution, and the motion resulted in a tied vote of 5-5 (Commissioners Levine Cava, Edmonson, Moss, Sosa and Suarez voted No. Commissioners Heyman and Souto were absent.)

Following further questions or comments the Board proceeded to vote that Application 7 be denied and not be transmitted.
 
4A1  
  152645 Ordinance      
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 7, LOCATED BETWEEN SW 64 STREET AND SW 88 STREET AND BETWEEN SW 177 AVENUE AND SW 167 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Withdrawn
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 4A, Legislative File No. 152643  
4B  
  152646 Resolution    
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 8, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION SW 88 STREET AND SW 177 AVENUE; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 8; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Continued
Resolution R-1178-15
Mover: Daniella Levine Cava
Seconder: Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Vote: 10 - 0
Absent: Monestime , Heyman , Suarez
  REPORT: Hearing no further questions or comments the Board proceeded to vote to consider the foregoing proposed resolution, Agenda Item 4B1 and Application No. 8 to be continued on December 7, 2016.

Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that there would be no additional notice of this hearing that would be held on December 7, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

SPECIAL NOTE: The continuation of the CDMP Hearing for Agenda Items 4B and 4B1 on today�s agenda for Application No. 8, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of SW 88TH Street and SW 177th Avenue, Filed in May 2015 Cycle to Amend the CDMP would be held on Tuesday, December 15, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. The minutes for the BCC CDMP continuation hearing would be Legistar Meeting Key No. 3738.
 
4B1  
  152648 Ordinance      
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 8, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION SW 88 STREET AND SW 177 AVENUE, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Continued
Ordinance
Mover: Daniella Levine Cava
Seconder: Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
Vote: 10 - 0
Absent: Monestime , Heyman , Suarez
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 4B, Legislative File No. 152646.  
4C  
  152642 Resolution   Click here if you don't have Adobe PDF Reader Clerk's Official Copy     
  RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MAY 2015 CYCLE APPLICATIONS REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRANSMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED IN THIS RESOLUTION RELATED TO APPLICATION NO. 9, A CORRIDOR GENERALLY 100 FEET WIDE ALONG SW/NW 69 AVENUE FROM SW 80 STREET TO �400 FEET NORTH OF NW 7 STREET; REQUESTING STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY TO REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 9; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO TAKE FINAL ACTION AT A LATER DATE; AND DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT ONE OR MORE SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS(Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted
Resolution R-1052-15
Mover: Rebeca Sosa
Seconder: Xavier L. Suarez
Vote: 11 - 0
Absent: Monestime , Heyman
  REPORT: Earlier in today�s (11/18) CDMP meeting Chairman Monestime recognized elected official City of Miami Commissioner Francis Suarez to speak on the foregoing application no. 9.

City of Miami Commissioner Francis Suarez appeared before the Board and thanked Commissioners Sosa and Suarez for their support on this item related to Ludlam Trail that was shared in both Districts 6 and 7. He spoke of engaging the community in participating in the Charrettes� to preserve the maximum amount of that corridor for the future.

City of Miami Commissioner Suarez noted his support in the County recommendations and stated there was a reserve of a million dollars in funding to help acquire a majority of the portion of this property located in the City of Miami from Flagler to 8th Street adjacent to Ludlam Trail. He spoke of the importance of this bike trail for future use and the efforts in engaging the public.

Commissioner Sosa commended City of Miami Commissioner Suarez on his leadership in this project.

Later in the meeting, Vice-Chairman Bovo chaired the meeting in the absence of Chairman Monestime.

Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read into the record the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance and the proposed companion resolution Agenda Item 4C1 for Application No. 9.

Vice Chairman Bovo opened the public hearing.

Mr. Mark Woerner, Assistant Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department recalled that an application came before this Board a year ago filed by the Florida East Coast Industries (FECI) for its corridor also known as the Ludlam Trail Corridor. He noted at that hearing the applicant withdrew the application followed by this Board adopted a resolution for the County staff to file an application after a Charrette was held in Districts 6 and 7.

Mr. Woerner presented a Power Point presentation and provided a legal description of this 5.8 mile long corridor that was located within the legal description of the subject property located within the urban infill area that was part of a well-studied corridor and identified as a regional significant trail way corridor. He noted that this site was identified in the long-range transportation plan as well as the CDMP that displays a map of this trail connecting from the north to the south end path and to the Underline Project. Mr. Woerner also noted that this site has been a priority for the County and looked at as an alternative for transportation, particularly related to bicycling and pedestrian use.

Mr. Woerner noted that the previous application filed by FECI envisioned this continuous trail, but also permitted development throughout parts of the corridor. He spoke about the concern expressed by residents at that time that led to the withdrawal and the Charrettes being conducted in February and the results were presented in April to the Commissioner Districts. Mr. Woerner also spoke about the results from the Charrette that included: the trail should be continuous; no development, only trails should be allowed behind single residential homes; allowance of other kind of pocket parks and amenities along the trail; and development only at nodes and major intersections.

Mr. Woerner continued the presentation regarding the provisions of the following amendments:
- Proposed Amendment
1. Zoning Requirements
- Blue Lagoon Area - Permitted Uses
1. Commercial and Residential Use
2. Density: 125 units per acre maximum
3. Floor area ratio: 5.0 maximum
4. Building height: 12 stories maximum
5. City of Miami has regulatory jurisdiction on portion within its boundaries

- Coral Way Area and Bird Road - Permitted Uses
1. Commercial and Residential Use
2. Density: 60 units per acre maximum
3. Floor area ratio: 2.5 maximum
4. Building height: 6 stories maximum

- Tamiami Area � Permitted Use
1. Building height: 12 stories maximum

- Southern Trail Segment
1. Designated for recreational trail use
2. Provide connection to M-Path
Mr. Woerner concluded that the staff recommendation was to transmit and to adopt this application. He noted that Community Council (CC) 12, 10 and 8 recommended approval as well; however, CC 12 and 10 proposed additional restrictions and conditions that included buffering.

Mr. Anthony Garcia, 6815 SW 57 Terrace, Miami appeared before the Board on behalf of Friends of Ludlam Trail (FOLT) as well as Green Mobility Network and presented a Power Point presentation. He spoke in favor of this plan and pointed out the following topics:

- Establishing a consensus plan
- How to understand the Ludlam Trail Plan
1. Landscape buffers
- What a difference a year makes! (Progress)
- Moving Forward � Ludlam Days
1. Monthly events
2. Increased public input
3. FECI and FOLT collaboration
4. Public access within a year
- Trail Improvements and Preps
1. Coral Gables Museum Exhibit
2. Fall Festival

Vice Chairman Bovo asked were there any other persons from Friends of Ludlam who wished to speak on this item.

Vice Chairman Bovo recognized State Representative Erik Fresen, District 114 and invited him to speak.

State Representative Erik Fresen appeared before the Board and spoke in support of this project that he believed would be a recreation project for the entire County.

Mr. Juan Mayol, Esquire, Holland and Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, appeared before the Board on behalf of FECI and he introduced Mr. Jose Gonzalez.

Mr. Jose Gonzalez, Senior Vice President of FECI, 2855 Lejune Road, Coral Gables, appeared before the Board and presented a Power Point presentation on the following subjects:

- History
1. 1930s Miami Beltline
2. Charrette Process
- Ludlam Trail
1. Previous Studies/Friends of Ludlam Trail
? Atlanta Beltline Westside Trail/Before
? Atlanta Beltline Westside Trail/Today
? Atlanta Beltline Eastside Trail/Today
- Ludlam Corridor: Redevelopment Project
- Next Steps

Mr. Mayol noted efforts in working with the Administration by offering drafting changes and corrections. He noted for the record to ensure that these two changes would be transmitted to the State of Florida the following changes offered by FECI: the height restriction only applied to habitable stories and there was an allowance to introduce a maximum of two high roll stories to ensure the building were designed to provide for the crossings at the major roadways.

Commissioner Sosa asked for clarification that the area being discussed related to major intersections, livable part, such as six or 12 stories and the creation of the parking on the first levels to allow the overpass to ensure continuity of the trail and that people would not have to cross through traffic.

Mr. Mayol concurred with Commissioner Sosa�s comments and noted that this was to ensure the buildings would accommodate that crossing.

Mr. Mayol noted the other change was a request related to the Bird Road development area to change to a maximum density of 90 dwelling units per gross acre that was equivalent to 206 units reflecting in the plans, which would not necessarily reach that total number.

The following persons appeared before the Board to speak in favor of the foregoing proposed resolution (Agenda Item 4C) and Application No. 9:

- Mr. Bob Welsh, 7437 SW 64 Court, Miami
- Ms. Lisa Vale, 6961 SW 62 Street, Miami, spoke on behalf of the Ludlam Trail Neighborhood Association
- Mr. Gary Held, 9226 SW 150 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Eleanor Quigley, 3470 SW 75 Avenue, Miami spoke on behalf of Waterway Neighborhood Association
- Mr. Frankie Ruiz, 3575 West Glencoe Street, spoke on behalf of Friends of Ludlam Trail


- Mr. Stuart Grant, 6991 SW 66th Street, Miami, spoke in favor of the proposed Agenda Item 4C, but spoke against the proposed amendments recommended by Community Council 12.

The following persons submitted a speaker�s card in support of the foregoing item:
- Ms. Lenora Bach, 7600 SW 69 Avenue, Miami
- Ms. Valerie Robbin, 730 Palermo Avenue, Coral Gables
- Ms. Laura Reynolds, 5530 Sunset Drive, Miami
- Ms. Claudia Fenter, 90 SW 3rd Street, Miami
- Mr. Peter Capua, 7280 SW 69th Court, Miami, on behalf of Ludlam Trail Neighborhood Association

In closing, Commissioner Sosa thanked the Administration for their efforts in this project. She commented on some ongoing work with the Governor to receive funding from the State. Commissioner Sosa also thanked FECI for their willingness to negotiate and meet with the community to receive input from the residents in District 6 to create this trail and complete it.
Commissioner Sosa reviewed the terms of this project that would include a continuous trail constructed in the industrial, business and Blue Lagoon areas, rather than residential areas. She noted the amenities would be considered in the future.

Commissioner Sosa thanked City of Miami Commissioner Francis Suarez for his support and noted how the City of Miami was working with FECI to construct the park in the City to have access to Blue Lagoon.

Commissioner Levine Cava commended the leadership of Commissioner Sosa on this project. She posed the question regarding the plan to move the development potential and identify what would be the final move as well as to ensure the agreement was secure based on the trade-off with increased density at the nodes, which was 25 percent. Commissioner Levine Cava also posed the question on the plan to regulate and connect the downtown Kendall area to the Underline Project since it was not part of this plan.

Commissioner Sosa noted that once this plan was approved by the Board and implemented, a Conservancy Trust would be created in order to ensure the trail was not changed with the guidance of the County Attorney�s Office; however, identifying the funding source was the first step.

Commissioner Levine Cava commented on this being a regional impacting project.

Vice Chairman Bovo commended the leadership of Commissioners Sosa and Suarez on this project.

In response to Vice Chairman Bovo�s question regarding whether the idea was closed concerning a future rail from Blue Lagoon to Dadeland, Mr. Woerner said yes, and noted that if this proposal was approved there would be development at the nodes and/or open space for recreation in between and that would be the primary use in the green space areas, such as non-motorized type of travel and park land.

Commissioner Sosa pointed some areas were so narrow that any activity would impact the windows of the houses and the density was small and there were no green areas to offer from Coral Way to Blue Lagoon areas.

Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer Raurell advised that the amendments were included in Mr. Mayol noted as part of the record and she read the added amended language of the first two sentences.

Commissioner Moss commended the leadership of Commissioners Sosa and Suarez as well as FECI and all those involved within the community. He spoke of the opportunities that were ahead and the attraction of tourists.

It was moved by Commissioner Sosa to adopt Application No. 9 as amended. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Suarez, followed by a discussion.

Assistant County Attorney Schwaderer Raurell reviewed the amended language recommended from FECI and the additional change regarding the Bird Road development area related to maximum density that was aforementioned by Mr. Mayol.

Commissioner Diaz expressed his support for the item and commented on the importance of cycling and this was another phase that tied into the other projects, such as the Underline and the need to continue adding to this project because people should have an option.

Commissioner Souto commended everyone involved in working on this project. He spoke of the history and progress in development. Commissioner Souto spoke of similar projects in Brazil and the future of this County.

Commissioner Barreiro concurred with the comments made by his colleagues and noted his experience in growing up in the area of the subject property.

Mr. Woerner noted that approximately 99 percent of the plan would be complete upon approval and approval of the final action would come back to this Board in March 2016. He also noted the review of this resolution would be continued as feedback or modifications were received.

Commissioner Sosa expressed appreciation towards those persons who assisted people in District 6.

Hearing no further questions or comments the Board proceeded to vote that the foregoing proposed resolution be adopted as presented by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.

The Board voted to transmit with change and adopt Application No. 9 with the following recommended amended language from Florida East Coast Industries (FECI) and the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources:

On page 3-3 the first two sentences..."Recreational trail segments and associated amenities shall be designed in a manner sensitive to adjacent uses. Buffering should be considered in the design of the recreational trail segments where adjacent to single family residential."

Additionally, as it relates to non-habitable stories an added sentence should read as follows:

"There shall be no more than two non-habitable stories per building, in order to accommodate the design of recreational trail overpass.
 
4C1  
  152649 Ordinance      
  ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 9, A CORRIDOR GENERALLY 100 FEET WIDE ALONG SW/NW 69 AVENUE FROM SW 80 STREET TO �400 FEET NORTH OF NW 7 STREET, FILED IN MAY 2015 CYCLE TO AMEND THE COUNTY�S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2(A)2](Regulatory and Economic Resources) Adopted on first reading
Public Hearing: No Date Certain
Ordinance
Mover: Rebeca Sosa
Seconder: Xavier L. Suarez
Vote: 11 - 0
Absent: Monestime , Heyman
  REPORT: Note: See Agenda Item 4C, Legislative File No. 152642  
ADJOURNMENT  
  REPORT: There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Bovo adjourned the CDMP meeting at 5:31 p.m. and to be continued on December 7, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

SPECIAL NOTE: The continuation of the CDMP Hearing for Agenda Items 4B and 4B1 on today�s agenda for Application No. 8, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of SW 88TH Street and SW 177th Avenue, filed in May 2015 Cycle to Amend the CDMP was held on Tuesday, December 15, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. See Legistar Meeting Key No. 3738 for the BCC CDMP continuation hearing minutes
 
3 CONSENT AGENDA  
 


3/29/2024       Agenda Key: 3724

Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2024 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site � 2024 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.