The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubmittal Letter-Robert MayorJune 26`h, 2007 Honorable Mayor Manny Diaz City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Fl 33133-5595 Dear Mayor Diaz: SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM PZ sc ON 4 -as o9. RE: MIAMI 21— CONCERNS FROM COMMERCIAL STAKEHOLDERS We, the undersigned, represent business with hundreds of employees, properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars, volunteers active in the community and developers. We are all active in and support our community. Rarely have these groups ever come together in support of the same cause but, independently and then collectively, we have all concluded that, if Miami 21 is to have the best chance to succeed, you must defer its approval (or at least implementation) of Miami 21 at this time, until all questions have been asked by all four quadrants of the City and FULLY answered. If you do not, we fear monumental confusion, severe and adverse economic impact and unlimited litigation and costs to our area and the City when both can afford it least. Rest assured, we are not anti -Miami 21, in fact many of us strongly support your goals and its eventual implementation, but we have identified several areas (see attachments) that, as currently written, will result in many negative and substantially adverse economic consequences to all levels of our city's citizens and businesses particularly on the small businesses, property owners and, dangerously, affordable housing. Many of these could be fixed but have not been. Other provisions are inconsistent, poorly drafted or just confusing or incomplete. We congratulate you on starting this endeavor since there is no real disagreement that the City's current zoning code can and must be improved or extensively updated. In support of that, we as a group have met numerous times, been involved in the drafting and comment on Miami 21 and most recently, met as a divergent group to intensively review the latest drafts of Miami 21 — including the changes posted on the Website the day after the PAB approved it and, as late as yesterday, another twenty plus pages of substantial unevaluated and unchallenged changes months later. We were, simply put, dismayed. These last minute changes, along with other issues that are still unaddressed or resolved just in our quadrant, make it clear that there is still much work to do in this major and much needed effort. These last minute major changes by DPZ as a result of meetings in just our quadrant strongly indicates that all four quadrants of the City should be allowed to weigh in with their unique concerns and issues and "test the water" before any area is subject to its provisions. Experimenting in just one area, particularly such an already challenged and poor area, could well destroy many businesses and lives. Representing these many divergent interests, we ask that the City study the impact of implementing it only in the East Quadrant as a stand-alone code of the City under a SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR To: Mayor Manny Diaz J uneI W,11EM '2- -;' ON ( a J-;�ff 101 a separate set of rules and operational procedures, mandating the City's already overburdened departments, divisions and boards to enforce two very different and often conflicting major City codes concurrently will create great expense and confusion. Doing this in the face of massive property tax changes could be a disaster. We want to become supporters of Miami 21 but just cannot do so in its current form. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you directly, and with staff representatives and DPZ, to discuss our concerns. Recognizing that time is of the essence, we look forward to your response and will move heaven and earth to accommodate your schedule on this very important issue. Again, we ask that Miami 21 be deferred. Sincerely, District 5 and District 2 Business Operators �Prorty Owners AJILLee A40CHlN612Y WynV1110od Little River p imo • Le on City Edgewater �vr� Pow `is Pal Grove Belle Meade ittle Rivert,oic.S Litt e Rive SE�6 SA CKS /�fA LLOit y K,4 OD 5i[v,�rCWo✓es,(a;t �VeJ-C u�)' LiN E ,ger �1.�odP! t l ,cS iw 15ro,tj S (�o; 3�'?rtb-y1! .L/ ) Qvdm Er+r��riSe$OSfI�'�/ cc: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez, Chairman (^:�'" ' ID 1 try Commissioner Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Commissioner Tomas Regalado -? Commissioner Marc Samoff vw.iei Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones "Da✓►` �Ige✓' apalati A�P�'-'�fi Mr. Pete Hernandez, City Manager Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney f J:, -Opo-vfy pw.� gas 7563 ,7�/ 2 eiws,ier- d Pry pe n'7 & Q -4Q- w&4� To: Mayor Manny Diaz June1V', 2007 separate set of rules and operational procedures, mandating the City's already overburdened departments, divisions and boards to enforce two very different and often conflicting major City codes concurrently will create great expense and confusion. Doing this in the face of massive property tax changes could be a disaster. We want to become supporters of Miami 21 but just cannot do so in its current form. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with you directly, and with staff representatives and DPZ, to discuss our concerns. Recognizing that time is of the essence, we look forward to your response and will move heaven and earth to accommodate your schedule on this very important issue. Again, we ask that Miami 21 be deferred. Sincerely, District 5 and District 2 Business Operators and Property Owners os Na �dvl.l.v 1i41L.LErz 1AAC-49A)6AY &�Pf vs. Wynwood Little,�River Lemo City . Edgewater Palm ove Belle Meade Littl/e� River , >Mle River S -1k 0 1 4S cc -C cu— �.1/1�i2 %ri VZ/"LF4lici t 3oS 75�- y�9y � _P� M4#q C-4+erpr(ses cc: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez, Chairman Commissioner Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Marc Samoff Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones Mr. Pete Hernandez, City Manager Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney SUBMITTED INTO THE ?UBLIC RECORD FOR TEM, > ONwo,. 2 l-.'tt�- l -Fes•^ -h' 1) SUBMITTED INTOTHE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM- �a ON � as 0-7.A�hO1en a) Miami 21, as written, kills affordability for both residential and commercial tenants and users. Why does Miami 21 propose an approximately 40% reduction in potential affordable housing units through less density? For new development? Currently "by right" height and density is reduced and allowable units per acre are reduced. 1) Miami 21 states that it seeks to promote the building, rebuilding, redeveloping, or enhancing new areas for affordable housing but it has extremely adverse negative economic effects of "nonconformity" for all property users and owners. The ability to do "adaptive -reuse" is being particularly hard hit. Tens of thousands of "uses" and structures will become non -conforming. 2) Revisit and expand the "benefits" option to all T-5 transect development (not just those adjacent to D-1 properties) — limited most when adjacent to T4 -R, less limited for T5 -R and even less limited if next to T5 -L or T-50 or above. This will allow more affordable housing directly and indirectly. (See attached Amendment.) There simply is no excuse or reason not to do this given the current crisis and concerns about the existing affordable housing efforts in this City. The question is not "why do it?", the question is "WHY NOT DO ITT' b) Maintaining and expanding uses with affordable commercial and industrial building units: 1) Expand commercial characteristics use descriptions within T-5 and D-1; 2) Omit one unit per plot (or folio). Expand both D districts to allow not 9 but 45 units per acre so long as current employment levels are maintained or increased; (Currently D1 is useless.) 3) Omit or revamp 6.6.1 of Miami 21; (see exhibit _) 4) Must have the addition of the Work/Live component for D-1 and D-2 allowing adaptive re -use promoting "Eyes on the Street", business ownership and more local jobs; (by exhibit_) -2) Nonconformity created by Miami 21 will be devastating for all structures and existing uses; a) Nonconforming uses, legal under code 11000, should not be frozen in time; (by exhibit ) 1) But allowed to expand and enhance their job base; 2) Have perpetual existence all without the threat of closure and destruction by Miami 21 code implementation in 20 years. b) Existing Legal Structures to code 11,000, that will be nonconforming to Miami 21, should have perpetual continuance of use by the group classification of current approved uses these structures were designed, approved and built for. 3 1) Miami 21 nonconformity is "use specific"; being ONLY the exact prior use type can re -occupy a nonconforming structure. This condemns each unit within a commercial, industrial, condo or office structure to that single business type occupancy at the adoption of Miami 21. This could have crippling negative economic consequences. Additionally, regardless of age or condition, the structure MUST conform to Miami 21 or be destroyed in 20 years. 2) Miami 21 must have described exemptions for nonconforming structures. This is needed to promote jobs and business through structural modifications and re -adaptive re -use by exemption. 3) Current legal structures throughout the City of Miami, residential, commercial, industrial, high-rise condo, and high-rise offices will all be nonconforming and unable to do upgrades, additions, refinance and changes of use will be illegal. 3) Miami 21's Negative Economic Impact to each District should be paramount to the City and to the Commission; 1) The City of Miami has never conducted a citywide economic impact study for the proposed implementation of Miami 21. What has been the experience of smaller cities that have tried to adopt the SMART CODE? Some cities, such as West Palm Beach, found this form based code too burden -some and have abandoned it. Miami 21 has NEVER been proven in an urban core center like the City of Miami. 2) The economics of nonconforming structures, given a sentence of 20 years, will result in limited, if any, private funding issued for mortgages for development or expansion; little if any business loans for nonconforming uses subject to Miami 21's non -expansion codes; limited start up loans for even the conforming business but located in a nonconforming structure. 3) Most structures throughout the City, with each District's tax base assessments, will suffer from Devaluation by Nonconformity. 4) Since nonconformity of structures and uses are the major tools to determine a "BLIGHTED COMMUNITY", banks will use the proverbial "blight red -line" against lending to those located in these blighted zones, investments will be minimal, business start-ups few, job loss will rise and most future investment for commerce will look elsewhere because most areas of the City of Miami will be blighted, by nonconformity. 5) Because of the many Miami 21 severe LIMITATIONS of height, structures, business uses, density, infrastructure, current and future mass transportation, Miami 21's new urbanism is a long way from any approval and certainly any enforcement or implementations for this developed urban core center. Extremely negative impacts will result. SUBMITTED INTO THE 71UBLIC RECORD FOR 4 7EM`ON & -w 6-7 . AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC BENEFITS - AN IMPROVED SOLUTION: We suggest a revision to 3.11, which is consistent with existing language and concepts of Miami 21, as follows: Section 3.11.1: "The intent of the public benefits program established in this section is to allow bonus building capacity in limited T-5 and T-6 zones in exchange for the developer's contribution to specified programs that provide benefits to the public. The bonus shall not be available to properties in a T-5 or T-6 zone if the property abuts a T-3 zone. The bonus capacity shall be permitted by warrant if the proposed development contributes toward the specified public benefits in the amount and in the manner as set forth herein. • T5: five -story maximum; bonus to 6 stories and 90 units per acre if abutting T4R; bonus to 7 stories and 105 units Per acre if abutting T4 -L. T4- 0 or TS -R properties: and bonus to 8 stories and 120 units per acre if abutting other T5 -L or T5-0 properties; FLR 5: • T6-8: eight -story maximum; bonus to 12 stories, FLR 5; bonus to 125% • T6-12: twelve -story maximum; bonus to 20 stories, FLR 8, bonus to 130% • T6-24: twenty-four story maximum; bonus to 48 stories, FLR 6, bonus to 130% • T6-36: thirty -six -story maximum; bonus to 60 stories, FLR 12 or 22, bonus to 140% • T6-48: forty -eight -story maximum; bonus to unlimited stories, FLR 24; bonus unlimited" SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR I T rt—:, M 2LcS ON6�-