Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOnline Public Comments Submitted at PZAB Mtg (9.20.2023)September 20, 2023, Public Comments for PZAB with Agenda Items September 20, 2023 Public Comment for PZAB with Agenda Items September 20, 2023 10:57 PM EDT Public Comment motero@miamigov.com First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item Are you a lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Carli Rab en Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item Are you lobb yist? I am speaking about #13074 & 13075. Unfortunately, those two items were not available to be selected in the drop -down menu. I hope that you take the time to collect all the comments that are going towards these items because this concerns my neighborhood and many people from my neighborhood showed up tonight to testify but we're unable to stay past 10pm. With that said, I do not support this up zone application and flum amendment. Do not be fooled by the supposed "outreach" made by the applicants. It was perfunctory and every time real questions were asked by homeowners in upper buena vista neighborhood, the applicants made excuses. My biggest fear is that this up one gets approved and immediately the applicants take the windfall to the carlir 12 market and sell the properties essentially a benefit aben NE ensured to the applicants with no consideration. And @g 51st N/A my fears are not baseless because right now as I type No mail. Stre this 2 of the 6 parcels are listed for sale. com et https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/The-Manor-at-Buena- Vista-28-Units/28490497/ I am not anti -development. In fact, I encourage the applicants (who often speak about how the property is currently below permitted density) to develop within the currently allowed limits. What they should not be allowed to do is try to justify this up zone post hoc claiming they need this up one to resolve the already dire parking and traffic restrictions. They created this traffic/parking problem and it is up to them - through current zoning and land use - to fix those issues. I also take issue with the supposed improvements to the land touted in the application. In particular, 169 and 177 ne 50th street have not improved the character of the neighborhood. I'm fancy, the owner has been a derelict landlord. He should not be rewarded with an up zone windfall. First Last Nam Nam e e Adri enne Gary Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item adrie nne. 12 Harr harr NE evel evel 51st N/A d d@g Stre mail. et com Coo pero Coo ne1 per @g mail. com 101 NE 50th stree My name is Adrienne Harreveld and I am a home owner at 12 NE 51st Street. First, it is a disgrace that agenda items 13 and 14 were not listed in the drop down menu for this form. I urge you to reconcile all items that relate to Items 13074 and 13075 before taking a vote on these items. Second, at least 6 residents left the hearing when the Board had seemingly voted to defer all remaining agenda items. To the heart of it, BVM and DDS' proposal is contrary to the goals of Miami 21, the board and this city. This proposal takes lots zoned as single family and seeks to increase density for commercial only. For the past 3.5 hours, the only item the board was consistent on was protecting neighborhoods and encourage housing. This proposal is diametrically opposed to those goals. The Planning and Zoning Department got it wrong. The Planning and Zoning Department considered decades old parcels -- Miami Jewish Health and the Avenues Schools (former Arch Bishop Curley)-- properties that predated Miami 21-- to consider whether the requested upzone would be appropriate. Plain and simply, this is a 100 year old residential neighborhood. This upzone chips away at that neighborhood, creating a slippery slope for development in our small neighborhood that cannot handle the burden of increased density. UDR Project 13074 Against upzoning ! Due to traffic snd B criwding on the street that will be caused by vendors RES and visitors . No covenant to ensure property will not OLU be sold and used commercially in ways not keeping TIO with our neighborhood. We bought this home to raise NS our families and we want to keep it residential. Are you lobb yist? No No First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Kat4 Kath Coo s@a y per ol.co m Bran Garc don is KI B WE WI L LIA MS Bra n don G 1 982 @ya hoo. com kibw e.will lams @g mail. com 101 NE5 0th Stre et 32 NE 51st St Age nda Public Comment Item File ID 1441 0 - As a homeowner i am against zoning changes . Due 4029 to misrepresentation of project by owners , the N crowding and traffic on the street from commercial MIA vendors and visitors will overwhelm the neighborhood MI AVE NUE N/A This is regarding the rezoning for Upper Buena Vista rezoning and adjoining properties. The owners of UBV have had a history of attempting to sneak behind the neighbors back in the area to try and push their agenda. They have had many chances to collaborate with the neighborhood association to make sure that we can work on a plan that everyone is comfortable with but have chosen to go behind the backs of the association. I wouldn't trust these people on their word. As of now, I'd like to share my opposition with the rezoning because they haven't addressed anyone's concerns regarding the change. They went as far as getting everyone's information from our group chat and went knocking door to door to get people to sign a document showing their support for the establishment and the rezoning, but made the wording very tricky. They completely ignored the previous conversation that were had with the board members of the association. Very shady actions in my opinion. Parking is a major issue in the area and they need to address several issue before I can support their actions. Are you lobb yist? No No 122 Nort heas t N/A x No 50th Stre et First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item Are you a lobb yist? cristi an.p Palo alom Cris man anes UBV N/A No es @g mail. com Yaro n 6365 yaro Colli n@s ns I am a realtor, and an investor in Miami. I'm a long terlin Ave time Upper Buena vista customer and I support this Lavi gequ Mia N/A project as a model for Miami showcasing, non- ityre mi impacting, micro retail and welcoming, a residential atty. FL element that harmonizes with the neighborhood com 3314 1 west mia mide velo Greg Stier pme nt@ gmai 1. co m 6815 Bisc ayne Blvd File ID 1453 5- 40 NE 54 STR EET This property is adjacent to mine at 26 NE 54th St, a single story retail center, and would be dwarfed by a T5 development on lot 43 & 50 NE 54th St If out of town developers want T5, then buy T5.. dont buy at T4 prices then ask for a redo These lots have sat empty and neglected for two years, with homeless people living inside two abandoned and unsecured buildings. No No First Last Nam Nam e e Ben ny Ema it Addr Addr ess ess 2475 ntntc SW hina 25 Lee @ya Ter hoo. Mia com mi FL Age nda Public Comment Item 2473 SW 25 TER has rented out the house to Multiple persons/families and violated the local zoning code for single-family use property in our community before their filing. Specifically, I have observed the driveway of the property is being used as an auto repair shop, which is not in accordance with the zoning code for single-family use. This activity has caused disruptions to the neighborhood and raises File concerns about the SAFETY and property values. I ID kindly request the board members reviewing File ID 1442 14423 to take action: 1. 2473 has used the property 3 — to run an unlicensed auto repair shop on the property 2473 without a permit. We ask the board members to SW maintain the zoning code for "Single -Family". 2. 25 Please provide guidance to the Owner: Maxout TER Investments LLC to have 2473 comply with local RAC zoning codes for Single -Family use. 3. The property E owner allowed multiple vehicles to obstruct the sidewalk as well because of the auto repair activities. This causes significant disruptions and potential SAFETY hazards to the elderly and children in our community. 2473 is two (2) blocks away from Silver Bluff Elementary School. Maxout Investment LLC has been violating the local zoning code for Single -Family use for some time now. Please maintain 2473 under "Single -Family" zoning regulations. Are you lobb yist? No First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess 2475 Pub li SW c.dle 25Te Kam Lee a@g r mail. Mia com mi FL Hatti Walk e er walk erha ttie @co mca st. ne Age nda Public Comment Item I am an elderly who lives on the same block. I need your help, please. Since the house was sold the owners has violated zoning codes, parking codes, and the American disability act. Example: 1. 4 vehicles File parked, at an angle, blocking pedestrian use of the ID sidewalk for months. 2. Elderlies with walking cane 1442 and walkers and children needed to walk around the 3 — cars to on coming traffic. I have a walking cane for 2473 medical needs. 3. The house was rented out to SW multiple tenebts, not a couple, and it was use as an 25 auto repair shop. 4. 4 vehicles park inside property TER lines and 4 vehicles park outside in violation. Right in RAC front of the home's gate. 5. Renters disregard trash E ordinances. Please, please DENY 2473 request to change current 'Single Family' zoning codes. 2473 Real Estate Developers / Onwers has not added value to the community. We need a good single family. I have photos, if needed. Are you lobb yist? No 1165 N.W. 109 St., Mia mi.Fl .331 68. c/ 0 Liber ty Why is a charter school needed when there are Squ N/A No three(3) schools already in the area. are Proj ect Frien ds & Fami ly Reu nion. Inc. John Mar john 3301 File x Era NE ID First Last *2© AR 9 Nam Nam Ktr I gda e e HT APT t1tR H14 EAR 12 Public Comment Hello to my fellow Miami residents and decision makers, I appreciate you allowing me this opportunity to voice my concerns about the proposed amendment to Ordinance #10544: 9/6/23 Public Zoning Meeting (now rescheduled due to lack of quorum). I am an owner resident in 4 Midtown and I'm a registered voter. I want to voice my concerns over the proposed amendment to increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150. Critical issue: Once development starts on this parcel of land, there will be no greenspace in this entire area for the community to enjoy. What is the government doing to ensure that parks and outdoor spaces are available for our health and well-being? Could the city/district convert the abandoned, partially developed land at the corner of 29th & Miami Ave into a community park? We were able to win the battle against Wal- Mart (thankfully!), why not convert that space into a park? This is a critical need for the people of Miami and Midtown! Without it, people will not want to move to or remain in Midtown, this I can tell you is a fact! There are already owners selling their condos now before the construction begins. It's not simply because the selling prices are high. They are frustrated enough over significant traffic, crime and cleanliness issues and the elimination of the only greenspace in the vicinity will be devastating to the community! There are government funded programs to do just what we are asking: www.midtownmiamicdd.net/district-info.php And we pay a special tax for living in Midtown just for these services. I ask you, how is this group, and others that have the responsibility to protect the citizens in these exact situations, standing up for us?! The appeal of Midtown Miami was simple. It's a small city feel with livable traffic but not the over -build of an area like Brickell. The folks at Related pitched that the bordering neighborhood, bounded by NE 36th Street to the North, Biscayne to the East, and East Coast Avenue to its West (a portion of your proposed Northeast RDIA) would not clutter the landscape or congest traffic given the 150 unit/acre limit for residential buildings. That has effectively created an artificial top of about 7 or 8 stories to buildings built No Are you lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item on those parcels and kept the local population stable. Meanwhile, the most frustrating intersection in Miami abuts the most northern point of your proposed Northeast RDIA (36th street where it meets NE 2nd & Federal Hwy). On a daily basis, it's a scene out of Mad Max with every driver fighting to get into the one middle lane that feeds over to the Julia Tuttle. The losers get backed up into the intersection, sometimes all the way back to the railroad tracks. Scary stuff. The foot traffic is constantly challenged by the motorists (including electric bikes, motorcycles, trollies, scooters, ATVs & the like) running through stop signs and red lights, just to advance the flow of traffic. It is clear the zoning department did not accurately predict the current local population and its needs. It is definitely not equipped to manage a more significant population surge. NE 2nd Ave, has cars backed up a quarter of a mile most afternoons around rush hour. We do not need any more congestion in the area. What concerns me about what is now being proposed for the Northeast RDIA is that it would increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150, effectively green lighting residential buildings, with standard sized units, to be built up to est. 20 floors. That would add stress (and more danger) to the road system and the pedestrians, add significantly more congestion and pollution, and would destroy the views of all owners who bought on the promise that there would be a limit to the size of dwellings on that stretch of land. Appreciating that you may want to add residential capacity near the intersection of N. Miami and 29th St, could efforts be made to incentivize the development of property to the Northwest of Midtown or to its West? It would revitalize neglected neighborhoods, not block any views, appropriately level out the congestion and provide easy access to public transportation that may be added to that area. It would also be a safe distance from the Bay as planners consider rising water levels. However, I must state... any attempt to increase the allowable threshold of units/acre is a huge detriment to the residents and owners in Midtown. We truly CAN'T support any more residents in the area and adding more units will highly affect Are you lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item the crime rates, walkability, traffic patterns and livability in a very negative manner. Finally, climate change effects, security and safety of the constituent homeowners have not even been addressed in my concerns outlined here, but they are significant and escalating in the immediate area. A group of us will be attending the hearing in person on 9/20/23. We would like to have our voices heard! I implore the city to stop and seriously consider, not only the short term interests (investors), but the long term and lasting detrimental effects that will impact this vibrant neighborhood. Please, don't destroy it. It's not necessary! Thank you for considering my opinions and concerns. Ram Mart ram 3301 File Hello to my fellow Miami residents and decision ona inez ona NE ID makers, I appreciate you allowing me this opportunity mart 1ST 1439 to voice my concerns about the proposed amendment inez AVE 5 — to Ordinance #10544: 9/6/23 Public Zoning Meeting APT THE (now rescheduled due to lack of quorum). I am an ac.c H14 EAR owner resident in 4 Midtown and I'm a registered om 12 voter. I want to voice my concerns over the proposed amendment to increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150. Critical issue: Once development starts on this parcel of land, there will be no greenspace in this entire area for the community to enjoy. What is the government doing to ensure that parks and outdoor spaces are available for our health and well-being? Could the city/district convert the abandoned, partially developed land at the corner of 29th & Miami Ave into a community park? We were able to win the battle against Wal- Mart (thankfully!), why not convert that space into a park? This is a critical need for the people of Miami and Midtown! Without it, people will not want to move to or remain in Midtown, this I can tell you is a fact! There are already owners selling their condos now before the construction begins. It's not simply because the selling prices are high. They are frustrated enough over significant traffic, crime and cleanliness issues and the elimination of the only greenspace in the vicinity will be devastating to the community! There are government funded programs to do just what we are asking: Are you lobb yist? No First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item www.midtownmiamicdd.net/district-info.php And we pay a special tax for living in Midtown just for these services. I ask you, how is this group, and others that have the responsibility to protect the citizens in these exact situations, standing up for us?! The appeal of Midtown Miami was simple. It's a small city feel with livable traffic but not the over -build of an area like Brickell. The folks at Related pitched that the bordering neighborhood, bounded by NE 36th Street to the North, Biscayne to the East, and East Coast Avenue to its West (a portion of your proposed Northeast RDIA) would not clutter the landscape or congest traffic given the 150 unit/acre limit for residential buildings. That has effectively created an artificial top of about 7 or 8 stories to buildings built on those parcels and kept the local population stable. Meanwhile, the most frustrating intersection in Miami abuts the most northern point of your proposed Northeast RDIA (36th street where it meets NE 2nd & Federal Hwy). On a daily basis, it's a scene out of Mad Max with every driver fighting to get into the one middle lane that feeds over to the Julia Tuttle. The losers get backed up into the intersection, sometimes all the way back to the railroad tracks. Scary stuff. The foot traffic is constantly challenged by the motorists (including electric bikes, motorcycles, trollies, scooters, ATVs & the like) running through stop signs and red lights, just to advance the flow of traffic. It is clear the zoning department did not accurately predict the current local population and its needs. It is definitely not equipped to manage a more significant population surge. NE 2nd Ave, has cars backed up a quarter of a mile most afternoons around rush hour. We do not need any more congestion in the area. What concerns me about what is now being proposed for the Northeast RDIA is that it would increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150, effectively green lighting residential buildings, with standard sized units, to be built up to est. 20 floors. That would add stress (and more danger) to the road system and the pedestrians, add significantly more congestion and pollution, and would destroy the views of all owners who bought on the promise that there would be a limit to the size of Are you a lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item dwellings on that stretch of land. Appreciating that you may want to add residential capacity near the intersection of N. Miami and 29th St, could efforts be made to incentivize the development of property to the Northwest of Midtown or to its West? It would revitalize neglected neighborhoods, not block any views, appropriately level out the congestion and provide easy access to public transportation that may be added to that area. It would also be a safe distance from the Bay as planners consider rising water levels. However, I must state... any attempt to increase the allowable threshold of units/acre is a huge detriment to the residents and owners in Midtown. We truly CAN'T support any more residents in the area and adding more units will highly affect the crime rates, walkability, traffic patterns and livability in a very negative manner. Finally, climate change effects, security and safety of the constituent homeowners have not even been addressed in my concerns outlined here, but they are significant and escalating in the immediate area. A group of us will be attending the hearing in person on 9/20/23. We would like to have our voices heard! I implore the city to stop and seriously consider, not only the short term interests (investors), but the long term and lasting detrimental effects that will impact this vibrant neighborhood. Please, don't destroy it. It's not necessary! Thank you for considering my opinions and concerns. End of Report Are you a lobb yist? September 20, 2023, Public Comments for PZAB with Agenda Items September 20, 2023 Public Comment for PZAB with Agenda Items September 20, 2023 10:57 PM EDT Public Comment motero@miamigov.com First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item Are you a lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Carli Rab en Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item Are you lobb yist? I am speaking about #13074 & 13075. Unfortunately, those two items were not available to be selected in the drop -down menu. I hope that you take the time to collect all the comments that are going towards these items because this concerns my neighborhood and many people from my neighborhood showed up tonight to testify but we're unable to stay past 10pm. With that said, I do not support this up zone application and flum amendment. Do not be fooled by the supposed "outreach" made by the applicants. It was perfunctory and every time real questions were asked by homeowners in upper buena vista neighborhood, the applicants made excuses. My biggest fear is that this up one gets approved and immediately the applicants take the windfall to the carlir 12 market and sell the properties essentially a benefit aben NE ensured to the applicants with no consideration. And @g 51st N/A my fears are not baseless because right now as I type No mail. Stre this 2 of the 6 parcels are listed for sale. com et https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/The-Manor-at-Buena- Vista-28-Units/28490497/ I am not anti -development. In fact, I encourage the applicants (who often speak about how the property is currently below permitted density) to develop within the currently allowed limits. What they should not be allowed to do is try to justify this up zone post hoc claiming they need this up one to resolve the already dire parking and traffic restrictions. They created this traffic/parking problem and it is up to them - through current zoning and land use - to fix those issues. I also take issue with the supposed improvements to the land touted in the application. In particular, 169 and 177 ne 50th street have not improved the character of the neighborhood. I'm fancy, the owner has been a derelict landlord. He should not be rewarded with an up zone windfall. First Last Nam Nam e e Adri enne Gary Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item adrie nne. 12 Harr harr NE evel evel 51st N/A d d@g Stre mail. et com Coo pero Coo ne1 per @g mail. com 101 NE 50th stree My name is Adrienne Harreveld and I am a home owner at 12 NE 51st Street. First, it is a disgrace that agenda items 13 and 14 were not listed in the drop down menu for this form. I urge you to reconcile all items that relate to Items 13074 and 13075 before taking a vote on these items. Second, at least 6 residents left the hearing when the Board had seemingly voted to defer all remaining agenda items. To the heart of it, BVM and DDS' proposal is contrary to the goals of Miami 21, the board and this city. This proposal takes lots zoned as single family and seeks to increase density for commercial only. For the past 3.5 hours, the only item the board was consistent on was protecting neighborhoods and encourage housing. This proposal is diametrically opposed to those goals. The Planning and Zoning Department got it wrong. The Planning and Zoning Department considered decades old parcels -- Miami Jewish Health and the Avenues Schools (former Arch Bishop Curley)-- properties that predated Miami 21-- to consider whether the requested upzone would be appropriate. Plain and simply, this is a 100 year old residential neighborhood. This upzone chips away at that neighborhood, creating a slippery slope for development in our small neighborhood that cannot handle the burden of increased density. UDR Project 13074 Against upzoning ! Due to traffic snd B criwding on the street that will be caused by vendors RES and visitors . No covenant to ensure property will not OLU be sold and used commercially in ways not keeping TIO with our neighborhood. We bought this home to raise NS our families and we want to keep it residential. Are you lobb yist? No No First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Kat4 Kath Coo s@a y per ol.co m Bran Garc don is KI B WE WI L LIA MS Bra n don G 1 982 @ya hoo. com kibw e.will lams @g mail. com 101 NE5 0th Stre et 32 NE 51st St Age nda Public Comment Item File ID 1441 0 - As a homeowner i am against zoning changes . Due 4029 to misrepresentation of project by owners , the N crowding and traffic on the street from commercial MIA vendors and visitors will overwhelm the neighborhood MI AVE NUE N/A This is regarding the rezoning for Upper Buena Vista rezoning and adjoining properties. The owners of UBV have had a history of attempting to sneak behind the neighbors back in the area to try and push their agenda. They have had many chances to collaborate with the neighborhood association to make sure that we can work on a plan that everyone is comfortable with but have chosen to go behind the backs of the association. I wouldn't trust these people on their word. As of now, I'd like to share my opposition with the rezoning because they haven't addressed anyone's concerns regarding the change. They went as far as getting everyone's information from our group chat and went knocking door to door to get people to sign a document showing their support for the establishment and the rezoning, but made the wording very tricky. They completely ignored the previous conversation that were had with the board members of the association. Very shady actions in my opinion. Parking is a major issue in the area and they need to address several issue before I can support their actions. Are you lobb yist? No No 122 Nort heas t N/A x No 50th Stre et First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item Are you a lobb yist? cristi an.p Palo alom Cris man anes UBV N/A No es @g mail. com Yaro n 6365 yaro Colli n@s ns I am a realtor, and an investor in Miami. I'm a long terlin Ave time Upper Buena vista customer and I support this Lavi gequ Mia N/A project as a model for Miami showcasing, non- ityre mi impacting, micro retail and welcoming, a residential atty. FL element that harmonizes with the neighborhood com 3314 1 west mia mide velo Greg Stier pme nt@ gmai 1. co m 6815 Bisc ayne Blvd File ID 1453 5- 40 NE 54 STR EET This property is adjacent to mine at 26 NE 54th St, a single story retail center, and would be dwarfed by a T5 development on lot 43 & 50 NE 54th St If out of town developers want T5, then buy T5.. dont buy at T4 prices then ask for a redo These lots have sat empty and neglected for two years, with homeless people living inside two abandoned and unsecured buildings. No No First Last Nam Nam e e Ben ny Ema it Addr Addr ess ess 2475 ntntc SW hina 25 Lee @ya Ter hoo. Mia com mi FL Age nda Public Comment Item 2473 SW 25 TER has rented out the house to Multiple persons/families and violated the local zoning code for single-family use property in our community before their filing. Specifically, I have observed the driveway of the property is being used as an auto repair shop, which is not in accordance with the zoning code for single-family use. This activity has caused disruptions to the neighborhood and raises File concerns about the SAFETY and property values. I ID kindly request the board members reviewing File ID 1442 14423 to take action: 1. 2473 has used the property 3 — to run an unlicensed auto repair shop on the property 2473 without a permit. We ask the board members to SW maintain the zoning code for "Single -Family". 2. 25 Please provide guidance to the Owner: Maxout TER Investments LLC to have 2473 comply with local RAC zoning codes for Single -Family use. 3. The property E owner allowed multiple vehicles to obstruct the sidewalk as well because of the auto repair activities. This causes significant disruptions and potential SAFETY hazards to the elderly and children in our community. 2473 is two (2) blocks away from Silver Bluff Elementary School. Maxout Investment LLC has been violating the local zoning code for Single -Family use for some time now. Please maintain 2473 under "Single -Family" zoning regulations. Are you lobb yist? No First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess 2475 Pub li SW c.dle 25Te Kam Lee a@g r mail. Mia com mi FL Hatti Walk e er walk erha ttie @co mca st. ne Age nda Public Comment Item I am an elderly who lives on the same block. I need your help, please. Since the house was sold the owners has violated zoning codes, parking codes, and the American disability act. Example: 1. 4 vehicles File parked, at an angle, blocking pedestrian use of the ID sidewalk for months. 2. Elderlies with walking cane 1442 and walkers and children needed to walk around the 3 — cars to on coming traffic. I have a walking cane for 2473 medical needs. 3. The house was rented out to SW multiple tenebts, not a couple, and it was use as an 25 auto repair shop. 4. 4 vehicles park inside property TER lines and 4 vehicles park outside in violation. Right in RAC front of the home's gate. 5. Renters disregard trash E ordinances. Please, please DENY 2473 request to change current 'Single Family' zoning codes. 2473 Real Estate Developers / Onwers has not added value to the community. We need a good single family. I have photos, if needed. Are you lobb yist? No 1165 N.W. 109 St., Mia mi.Fl .331 68. c/ 0 Liber ty Why is a charter school needed when there are Squ N/A No three(3) schools already in the area. are Proj ect Frien ds & Fami ly Reu nion. Inc. John Mar john 3301 File x Era NE ID First Last *2© AR 9 Nam Nam Ktr I gda e e HT APT t1tR H14 EAR 12 Public Comment Hello to my fellow Miami residents and decision makers, I appreciate you allowing me this opportunity to voice my concerns about the proposed amendment to Ordinance #10544: 9/6/23 Public Zoning Meeting (now rescheduled due to lack of quorum). I am an owner resident in 4 Midtown and I'm a registered voter. I want to voice my concerns over the proposed amendment to increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150. Critical issue: Once development starts on this parcel of land, there will be no greenspace in this entire area for the community to enjoy. What is the government doing to ensure that parks and outdoor spaces are available for our health and well-being? Could the city/district convert the abandoned, partially developed land at the corner of 29th & Miami Ave into a community park? We were able to win the battle against Wal- Mart (thankfully!), why not convert that space into a park? This is a critical need for the people of Miami and Midtown! Without it, people will not want to move to or remain in Midtown, this I can tell you is a fact! There are already owners selling their condos now before the construction begins. It's not simply because the selling prices are high. They are frustrated enough over significant traffic, crime and cleanliness issues and the elimination of the only greenspace in the vicinity will be devastating to the community! There are government funded programs to do just what we are asking: www.midtownmiamicdd.net/district-info.php And we pay a special tax for living in Midtown just for these services. I ask you, how is this group, and others that have the responsibility to protect the citizens in these exact situations, standing up for us?! The appeal of Midtown Miami was simple. It's a small city feel with livable traffic but not the over -build of an area like Brickell. The folks at Related pitched that the bordering neighborhood, bounded by NE 36th Street to the North, Biscayne to the East, and East Coast Avenue to its West (a portion of your proposed Northeast RDIA) would not clutter the landscape or congest traffic given the 150 unit/acre limit for residential buildings. That has effectively created an artificial top of about 7 or 8 stories to buildings built No Are you lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item on those parcels and kept the local population stable. Meanwhile, the most frustrating intersection in Miami abuts the most northern point of your proposed Northeast RDIA (36th street where it meets NE 2nd & Federal Hwy). On a daily basis, it's a scene out of Mad Max with every driver fighting to get into the one middle lane that feeds over to the Julia Tuttle. The losers get backed up into the intersection, sometimes all the way back to the railroad tracks. Scary stuff. The foot traffic is constantly challenged by the motorists (including electric bikes, motorcycles, trollies, scooters, ATVs & the like) running through stop signs and red lights, just to advance the flow of traffic. It is clear the zoning department did not accurately predict the current local population and its needs. It is definitely not equipped to manage a more significant population surge. NE 2nd Ave, has cars backed up a quarter of a mile most afternoons around rush hour. We do not need any more congestion in the area. What concerns me about what is now being proposed for the Northeast RDIA is that it would increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150, effectively green lighting residential buildings, with standard sized units, to be built up to est. 20 floors. That would add stress (and more danger) to the road system and the pedestrians, add significantly more congestion and pollution, and would destroy the views of all owners who bought on the promise that there would be a limit to the size of dwellings on that stretch of land. Appreciating that you may want to add residential capacity near the intersection of N. Miami and 29th St, could efforts be made to incentivize the development of property to the Northwest of Midtown or to its West? It would revitalize neglected neighborhoods, not block any views, appropriately level out the congestion and provide easy access to public transportation that may be added to that area. It would also be a safe distance from the Bay as planners consider rising water levels. However, I must state... any attempt to increase the allowable threshold of units/acre is a huge detriment to the residents and owners in Midtown. We truly CAN'T support any more residents in the area and adding more units will highly affect Are you lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item the crime rates, walkability, traffic patterns and livability in a very negative manner. Finally, climate change effects, security and safety of the constituent homeowners have not even been addressed in my concerns outlined here, but they are significant and escalating in the immediate area. A group of us will be attending the hearing in person on 9/20/23. We would like to have our voices heard! I implore the city to stop and seriously consider, not only the short term interests (investors), but the long term and lasting detrimental effects that will impact this vibrant neighborhood. Please, don't destroy it. It's not necessary! Thank you for considering my opinions and concerns. Ram Mart ram 3301 File Hello to my fellow Miami residents and decision ona inez ona NE ID makers, I appreciate you allowing me this opportunity mart 1ST 1439 to voice my concerns about the proposed amendment inez AVE 5 — to Ordinance #10544: 9/6/23 Public Zoning Meeting APT THE (now rescheduled due to lack of quorum). I am an ac.c H14 EAR owner resident in 4 Midtown and I'm a registered om 12 voter. I want to voice my concerns over the proposed amendment to increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150. Critical issue: Once development starts on this parcel of land, there will be no greenspace in this entire area for the community to enjoy. What is the government doing to ensure that parks and outdoor spaces are available for our health and well-being? Could the city/district convert the abandoned, partially developed land at the corner of 29th & Miami Ave into a community park? We were able to win the battle against Wal- Mart (thankfully!), why not convert that space into a park? This is a critical need for the people of Miami and Midtown! Without it, people will not want to move to or remain in Midtown, this I can tell you is a fact! There are already owners selling their condos now before the construction begins. It's not simply because the selling prices are high. They are frustrated enough over significant traffic, crime and cleanliness issues and the elimination of the only greenspace in the vicinity will be devastating to the community! There are government funded programs to do just what we are asking: Are you lobb yist? No First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item www.midtownmiamicdd.net/district-info.php And we pay a special tax for living in Midtown just for these services. I ask you, how is this group, and others that have the responsibility to protect the citizens in these exact situations, standing up for us?! The appeal of Midtown Miami was simple. It's a small city feel with livable traffic but not the over -build of an area like Brickell. The folks at Related pitched that the bordering neighborhood, bounded by NE 36th Street to the North, Biscayne to the East, and East Coast Avenue to its West (a portion of your proposed Northeast RDIA) would not clutter the landscape or congest traffic given the 150 unit/acre limit for residential buildings. That has effectively created an artificial top of about 7 or 8 stories to buildings built on those parcels and kept the local population stable. Meanwhile, the most frustrating intersection in Miami abuts the most northern point of your proposed Northeast RDIA (36th street where it meets NE 2nd & Federal Hwy). On a daily basis, it's a scene out of Mad Max with every driver fighting to get into the one middle lane that feeds over to the Julia Tuttle. The losers get backed up into the intersection, sometimes all the way back to the railroad tracks. Scary stuff. The foot traffic is constantly challenged by the motorists (including electric bikes, motorcycles, trollies, scooters, ATVs & the like) running through stop signs and red lights, just to advance the flow of traffic. It is clear the zoning department did not accurately predict the current local population and its needs. It is definitely not equipped to manage a more significant population surge. NE 2nd Ave, has cars backed up a quarter of a mile most afternoons around rush hour. We do not need any more congestion in the area. What concerns me about what is now being proposed for the Northeast RDIA is that it would increase the limit on residential units/acre to 350 from the current 150, effectively green lighting residential buildings, with standard sized units, to be built up to est. 20 floors. That would add stress (and more danger) to the road system and the pedestrians, add significantly more congestion and pollution, and would destroy the views of all owners who bought on the promise that there would be a limit to the size of Are you a lobb yist? First Last Nam Nam e e Ema it Addr Addr ess ess Age nda Public Comment Item dwellings on that stretch of land. Appreciating that you may want to add residential capacity near the intersection of N. Miami and 29th St, could efforts be made to incentivize the development of property to the Northwest of Midtown or to its West? It would revitalize neglected neighborhoods, not block any views, appropriately level out the congestion and provide easy access to public transportation that may be added to that area. It would also be a safe distance from the Bay as planners consider rising water levels. However, I must state... any attempt to increase the allowable threshold of units/acre is a huge detriment to the residents and owners in Midtown. We truly CAN'T support any more residents in the area and adding more units will highly affect the crime rates, walkability, traffic patterns and livability in a very negative manner. Finally, climate change effects, security and safety of the constituent homeowners have not even been addressed in my concerns outlined here, but they are significant and escalating in the immediate area. A group of us will be attending the hearing in person on 9/20/23. We would like to have our voices heard! I implore the city to stop and seriously consider, not only the short term interests (investors), but the long term and lasting detrimental effects that will impact this vibrant neighborhood. Please, don't destroy it. It's not necessary! Thank you for considering my opinions and concerns. End of Report Are you a lobb yist?