HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Dean Lewis October 22, 2009Dean B. LEMS -Architect
11- Miami, October 2009
To the Attention of:
Honorable Commissioner Sarnoff and fellow Commissoners
Re: Vote No on 35 Feet Height Limit on Biscayne Boulevard
'"N4
SUG""'MITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM -P -L'5 ON ib 2a o9
With all due respect Commissioner, you are typically a well informed gentlemen as well as
a savvy politician.
Why have you not applied your political prowess to the betterment of your unfounded, ill-
informed and blatant `buzz cut' 35 Foot Height limit campaign for Biscayne Boulevard's
MIMO District, when you have been fully informed by professionals of its wrong doing ? See
the attached letters from my respected colleagues including:
Fullerton Diaz Architects, Dover Kohl Et Partners Town Planners, Luis Revuelta Architect
Your disregard of the facts of sound urban design (not resort town planning) principles in
this critical decision truly has us of the design profession and District stake holders shocked
beyond belief. Even the City's own Planning Consultant, DPZ never advised a 35 Foot Cap,
on the contrary, they recommended T5 and T6-8 zoning more compatible to the existing
SD -9 zoning. Remember, the Boulevard's Upper Eastside is still Urban Core. The City of
Miami to its limits is still the Urban Core of Miami Dade County. So this is about urbanism,
not sub -urbanism principles.
When will you admit that your campaign promise of this 35 Foot Cap was a pre -mature,
unfounded decision based perhaps more on political gain and a romantic, historic vision of
a bygone, horse Et buggy era of the Boulevard ? A decision to which you did not fully
comprehend the urban ramifications and potential detriment to your own district's
residents and business owners ! Why do you still, to this day, ignore these facts ? When
will your office stop hiding behind a veil of smooth political prowess and admit your
mistake, correct it, and do what is right ?
Fact 1: Our Common Ground -Variation of Height Limits
If we agree, that development intensity should carefully increase as you move towards the
boulevard, how do you justify a limit of 35 FT., when you are abutting R3 (or greater) with
minimum 50FT Height Limit, Multifamily Development Zones ? This obviously makes no
sense. In fact, we have close to 36 Blocks directly abutting the Boulevard's SD -9 Zone, that
all have Height and Intensity limits greater than 35 Feet..! (see the attached the 11,000
Atlas pages 15, 14, and 9 where green indicates the abutting zones of greater than 35 Feet
and yellow indicates the Boulevard's SD -9 zone destined for height reduction ) These
blocks include:
2 Blocks:
371h Street to Oh Street (east side)
4 Blocks:
50`h Street to 54`h Street (west side)
15 Blocks:
54`h Street to 60`h Street (west side)
60`h Street to 65`h Street (east and west sides)
65`h Street to 69`h Street (west side)
15 Blocks:
72nd Street to 77 Street (east side)
77`h Street to 83 Street (west side),
80`h Street (east and west sides)
83rd Street to 87 Street (east side)
c B� N. L,)
r _ - C / ,v; =,,.; . r� 33, - ! ?: " www.dblaZus
Architecture
Interiors Planning AA0003652 AR0017357 ID0004536 Committed to Excellence
a-a.rl
Dean B. LEWIS-Architect
Miami, October 2009
To the Attention of:
Honorable Commissioner Sarnoff and fellow Commissoners
Re: Vote No on 35 Feet Height Limit on Biscayne Boulevard
SUB%ITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEMPz_s ON io 09 ;
With all due respect Commissioner, you are typically a well informed gentlemen as well as
a savvy politician.
Why have you not applied your political prowess to the betterment of your unfounded, ill-
informed and blatant `buzz cut' 35 Foot Height limit campaign for Biscayne Boulevard's
MIMO District, when you have been fully informed by professionals of its wrong doing ? See
the attached letters from my respected colleagues including:
Fullerton Diaz Architects, Dover Kohl Et Partners Town Planners, Luis Revuelta Architect
Your disregard of the facts of sound urban design (not resort town planning) principles in
this critical decision truly has us of the design profession and District stake holders shocked
beyond belief. Even the City's own Planning Consultant, DPZ never advised a 35 Foot Cap,
on the contrary, they recommended T5 and T6-8 zoning more compatible to the existing
SD -9 zoning. Remember, the Boulevard's Upper Eastside is still Urban Core. The City of
Miami to its limits is still the Urban Core of Miami Dade County. So this is about urbanism,
not sub -urbanism principles.
When will you admit that your campaign promise of this 35 Foot Cap was a pre -mature,
unfounded decision based perhaps more on political gain and a romantic, historic vision of
a bygone, horse It buggy era of the Boulevard ? A decision to which you did not fully
comprehend the urban ramifications and potential detriment to your own district's
residents and business owners ! Why do you still, to this day, ignore these facts ? When
will your office stop hiding behind a veil of smooth political prowess and admit your
mistake, correct it, and do what is right ?
Fact 1: Our Common Ground -Variation of Height Limits
If we agree, that development intensity should carefully increase as you move towards the
boulevard, how do you justify a limit of 35 FT., when you are abutting R3 (or greater) with
minimum 5OFT Height Limit, Multifamily Development Zones ? This obviously makes no
sense. In fact, we have close to 36 Blocks directly abutting the Boulevard's SD -9 Zone, that
all have Height and Intensity limits greater than 35 Feet..! (see the attached the 11,000
Atlas pages 15, 14, and 9 where green indicates the abutting zones of greater than 35 Feet
and yellow indicates the Boulevard's SD -9 zone destined for height reduction ) These
blocks include:
2 Blocks: 37th Street to 39th Street (east side)
4 Blocks: 50`h Street to 54th Street (west side)
15 Blocks: 54`h Street to 60th Street (west side)
601h Street to 65th Street (east and west sides)
651h Street to 69th Street (west side)
15 Blocks: 72nd Street to 77 Street (east side)
77th Street to 83 Street (west side),
801h Street (east and west sides)
83'd Street to 87 Street (east side)
Architecture Interiors Planning AA0003652 AR0017357 ID0004536
O �- a2d9.s Svb►_-1 jqa. (' 1jealn Le uj i5
Committed to Excellence
Dean B. LEWIS-Architect
So clearly, down -zoning the Boulevard's SD -9 zone to 35 Feet when abutting these blocks,
or any zone with greater development entitlements of 50 Feet or more, is illogical and
against the City and Residents best interests.
Fact 2: 35 Feet Height Limit will increase Rear Parking Lot Deficiencies
It will also create the increase of suburban surface parking lot syndrome and increase
parking deficiencies since the lower buildings will not be able to integrate structured
parking levels with architectural screen facades.
Solution: The real solution, (not the new urbanism solution of resort town planning), is a
variation of height limits and development intensities based on real abutting adjacencies of
each Block. Heights ranging from as low as 53 Feet when abutting single family residents
and to up to 85 or 95 Feet when and only if abutting compatible zoning such as R3 or
greater, while still applying a 45 degree angle setback against the abutting zone if lower in
intensity.
This would create the protective transitional zoning of which MIAMI 21 professes to be
based, but is still lacking in its application throughout the City.
Further, I would still maintain that against single Family neighborhoods, the initial
maximum height of 25 Feet and the 45 degree angle setback up to the final maximum
height allowed. This is similar to current SD -9 zoning principles.
Anything less, such as the `across the board' buzz -cut Cap of 35 Feet would be ill advised
and further denigrate the future of the Boulevard as well as your relationship with your
core constituency and the critical professionals of our community as soon as all realized
and experienced the error.
This is particularly true in the attempt to disguise your unfounded 35 Foot Cap (a zoning
issue) within Chapter 23's Historic Preservation guidelines, and further mask the truth with
a false promise of potential profit from the unproven, unresolved Transfer of
Developments, still too convoluted and unpredictable for a Developer implement, instead
of simply paying once into the Public Benefits Bonus Program, <if he has the need and is
willing to pay the price> 2 variables that further limit this TDR market.
Finally, Commissioner Sarnoff, and fellow Commissioners, we truly expect better from you
and your staff in seeing the light on this critical issue. Let's get off the romanticism and self
preservation and get back to real urbanism!
We only request fair and balanced judgment of the facts from you and your fellow
Commissioners on this issue which will have City wide ramifications in all historically
designated areas, or similar commercial corridors. I would not care to imagine the level of
resistance tomorrow if the 35 Foot Height Limit was unjustly imposed on Coral Way, West
Flagler or the Cafe District in Wynwoodl
Sincerely,
U i �
.t O Y
M 3 0 Q 4)
CL c E u
O O N
Dean B. Lewis, AIA, NCARB 0 c r-1 ~
Thresholds Intl. -DB LEWIS Architect o c
Lq
fc. Ec,_ _ i+ e, . W,, `'✓; FL 33'37 / AC5 w.
`72.1220 wwdbla2.us Z = NI a
CL
Architecture Interiors Planning AA0003652 AR0017357 ID0004536 Committed to Excellence J3 o E
3
DB LEWIS Architecture+Design
r
CREATION OF PUBLIC SPACE
RATIO I. : 1
1 to l ratio
The 1 to 1 ratio is an ideal cross-section resulting in a positive
human scale relationship. Although this section occurs in
older cities, particularly in Europe, it seldom occurs along
South Florida roadways. The 1 to 1 ratio is ideal for
pedestrian passages.
URBAN DESIGN MANUAL
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
CUBE OF LIGHT
URBAN DESIGN MANUAL
Prepared by the Miami -Dade County
Department of Planning and Zoning
Febmary 1999
Reprinted March 2005
Adopted by Resolution # R-1360-98
SAY NO TO:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
DB LEWIS Archdi c0.ire+Design
I
COMMERCIAL STREET SECTIONS
sa Four R.O.W.
35' HT. LIMIT ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
it L
IgapllteprtglC
» s
COMMERCIAL
Tits axwonxtric illustrates the use rrfan atuchcd eonuncrcral squHrr: io ieinftme the definitiwt of
the tuaditdtttseetlon. Additlunally. the use of atumks pros ides shade and huntan scale the s juste
nlTers an area hx pedestrian eonyregaui�n
r
liccrpt.ble
�^
Preferred
This secnun hu+qI a'01
rtno wItKh is wapropnare llre
cense of hwnw a alc is loci Unwceptable factors wchuk
lurge Irmt putking Inti and how bulling heights with long
walkmg dwanc•rs throuFli parking lots in order to reach the
sidewalkandbusmop As,nwofcnclosuredrxsmacxn
In this mmc acceptable cxmrtpk. Imiacd parking is piovidni to
ibe front setback Bwhlino arc clitser to the tmet and arcades
provide scale a, file pc4cmran lcvcl Tallcr huddirip and
l4ndiampe funiser tc(Ine Ibis wdiuu This 1 lu 5 sechun falls
within the maximwn rat ut of No 6,
In; Ili tptefettrdexamplr.the rnuurvlIli t Tltia.acluevalln
thrrc•story structures Plaaxl close to the sheet, arcades, and
landscape, all of n Itch lurthcr n line thn section
SAY NO TO SUBURBAN SURFACE PARKING SYNDROME
YES TO URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES, NOT SUB -URBAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES!
Minto Association Board.
I do not support the proposed drastic change in the City of Miami Zoning, Code, that
would limit development height to 35' to the area currently zoned SD -9, 'located in the
upper east side of Biscayne Blvd. In my professional opinion to place such a strict and
arbitrary height limit would not only discourage good design and limit potential
redevelopment of this area, it will also create a monotonous skyline, devoid of variety in
potential users.
The current SD -9, which was precisely and carefully drafted to protect the residential
neighborhoods to the rear, has built in flexibility which will provide buffers of between
25' to 40', depending on whether the adjacent neighbors are zoned Rl/R2 or R3/R4, in
addition to a 45 degree setback angle. The maximum height facing Biscayne Boulevard
being 85'to 90' depending on type of use. That will result in buildings with a maximum
height of 8 to 10 stories, in the front, facing a 100' wide right of way, and 2 to 4 stories in
the rear, facing the neighbors.
P. FIJI 7 ENTOt4 .. _
S
Ver t -NA � iib'Y 'LiEVEDC
TARGS_0 R, -ANPJB4U1+'
^NI' -;F tect
aE pit3ra rnU :iU LGr2 rabies, Hci!G3 3314E P;303.44L.42013 is 305, 44!1-6962 ww.&i DArchl:G :s.Ean -
U t
C
These design parameters will create a variety in architectural styles, uses and massing.
There will be some sites that, because of their size or unusual geometry, and therefore
o
QJ
N E u
limited parking, which will be developed to four or five stories and others will be
;,CiU=
L-
developed to approximately ten stories maximum.
�
CD
CD U
d
�
-p
u
o ca
These different heights, encourage residential developments on the taller sections of the
v
2
�
—
L! —
N' U
buildings, because of views and security, and commercial developments on the shorter
�
o
E
buildings. An ideal scenario for making sure cities and neighborhoods thrive and survive,
,'
L
because different uses feed on each other, and reduce dependence on the automobiles.
Muni. Fu -Rion
I believe this proposed major change, which is not envisioned in the current code or
;�= ;; .AW UAF,
Miami 21, will be detrimental to the future of this significant and important
5 TF''""
neighborhood, and therefore respectfully oppose it.
P. FIJI 7 ENTOt4 .. _
S
Ver t -NA � iib'Y 'LiEVEDC
TARGS_0 R, -ANPJB4U1+'
^NI' -;F tect
aE pit3ra rnU :iU LGr2 rabies, Hci!G3 3314E P;303.44L.42013 is 305, 44!1-6962 ww.&i DArchl:G :s.Ean -
t o w n p l a n n i n g
August 31, 2009
To whom it may concern,
Some residents have expressed angst about the possibility of multi -story buildings along portions
of Biscayne Boulevard. They have fought to put a 35' height limit in place on all new
development along one of Miami's main corridors. A 35' height limit is a defacto two-story limit,
as it is difficult to fit more than two stories in such an envelope, especially if generous floor to
ceiling heights are used in the commercial storefronts or in upper floor apartments and offices.
As a practicing town planner and designer, I am compelled to explain that two-story buildings are
an inappropriate and unsustainable use of land along a major corridor such as Biscayne
Boulevard. Below I answer the question: Why are multi -story, mixed use buildings along
Biscayne Boulevard the responsible tiling fo do?
1. They are good for the environment. Sustainability depends upon creating an
environment where mixed uses are encouraged. Neighborhoods that feature an
abundance of vertically mixed-use, multi -story buildings (including walk-ups, mid -rises,
and high-rises) have the lowest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases due to reduced
vehicle miles traveled, higher energy efficiencies, lower consumption of water and
utilities, and potentially, a higher degree of social cohesiveness. Conversely, sprawl
development (low slung, disconnected, single -use development) produces the highest
per capita greenhouse gas emissions and is most consumptive of natural resources and
utilities.
2. They make vibrant places. Most great streets and boulevards that are vibrant
settings for economic and social interaction have complex layering of uses - vertically.
This would be made difficult by a rule to restrict buildings to two floors, and is
inappropriate in a major metropolitan context.
3. They preserve natural areas and agriculture. A dense and walkable Biscayne
Boulevard benefits the entire region. Keeping South Florida's "Eastward Ho!" Receiving
Area as dense and compact as possible means reducing the development pressure on
sensitive and strategic agricultural and wilderness areas to the west, both inside and
outside the UDB.
4. They reduce crime. Neighborhoods that feature an abundance of mixed-use, multi-
story buildings are safer, as different parts of the building are inhabited and activated at
different times of the day. This is one of the pillars of natural surveillance, and it is a
powerful crime deterrent.
5. They just feel good. The ideal spatial enclosure ratio that is found on walkable streets
should produce a street section that is taller than it is wide. Biscayne Boulevard is about
8D' - 100' wide. 35' buildings would be incapable of forming this degree of spatial
enclosure. The need for spatial enclosure is recognized by many experts as a common
and necessary feature of most walkable environments. The wider the street, the taller
the "streetwall" should be in order to create the correct proportion. This is a cross-
cultural and cross-dimate pattern in urban design, though hotter cultures and
geographies generally have a more vertical proportion (i.e. higher buildings framing a
narrower space).
6. They make transit feasible. Neighborhoods that feature multi -story, mixed-use
buildings are transit -ready. That is to say, their density and mixture of uses make it
possible for transit officials to decrease headways (increasing frequency of service) and
make upgrades to transit in corridors where the ridership projections are likely to justify
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
the investment Suppressing heights and density is one of the surest ways to scare
officials from pursuing public transit upgrades or allocating increasingly scarce transit
funds.
For these and other reasons, let us make sure that any height regulations are rooted not in
emotion, but instead on precedent and careful study of the great and livable cities that we
admire. By doing so, we will be clearly guided as to the environmental, functional, and aesthetic
benefits of creating a dense, transit -ready, mixed-use city fabric.
Sincerely,
Andrew Georgladis
Project Director
Dover, Kohl & Partners Town Planning
1371 Sunset Drive, Coral Gables, Florida 33143 Telephone (305) 666-0446 Fax (303) 666-0360
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Miami, I'll
To: MIMO Biscayne Blvd Association_
Re: 35' Height Restriction Proposal.
To whom it may concem,
revuelta
arcrliC6ctur,e
rnterna�voral
u t
�
O
Y
CL
3
c
Cn
C:),
CL
E
O
N
L
C
O
U
-p
u
N
rn
u
N
Ln
E
a-
a-
a
o
E
O
CD
+J+
At the request of my friend and colleague Dean Lewis I am writing this opinion letter to express my views
regarding the 35' height restriction proposed and demanded by some neighbors in the immediate area.
As an Architect I have felt the same frustration of all concerning the lack of transition between the higher intensity
zones of C-1 in different areas of the City and the lesser intensity areas of R-1 and R-2.
The oversight at sine point decades ago of not planning for the growth of the C-1 zones and the demand for
parking could have being easily solved then and now by creating transition zones that will not pay higher taxes
until they are bought and developed by the purchaser.
The current owner of these transition properties would essentially have the privilege of been up -zoned and able
to sell their properties or transfer of development rights at a potential higher value and the City would gain a
transition boundary that would naturadly be created in the future decades.
The answer is not limiting to 35 feet, the areas that flank Biscayne Boulevard or for that matter other major
avenues and streets that have a right of way of more than 70 feet to lower heights than 8 or 10 stories.
Any avenue or street Wth such a right of way should be able to Wthstand contextually structures of a height one
to one and half its width, without fear of creating an urban atrocity or an undesirable urban fabric.
The solution is easy and many have proposed and endorsed it. The implementation is also easy to achieve
urbanistically, legally and financialty. The problem lays in the political tug of war those neighbors with certain
particular interests and views are creating with elected officials and the pressure they are applying, in ITry view
unfairly on commissioners that are trying to do the best for the City while balancing a political equation that is
unfairly weighted.
2950 3N 271h Avenue Sate 110 Wornk Fbrfda 33133 T.(305) 590-.ODO F (3M 590-504 rc�o 'Td-deaum com
Fa.1
Commissioners like Sarnoff and Regalado, for example should not be placed in the awkward position of having
to make Urban Planning decisions based on the political pressure of certain neighborhood groups. This pressure
to achieve in what my opinion is a very selfish goal, will bring an Urban disparity in Biscayne Boulevard and
other areas, that will be no better than the lack of vision of not implementing transition areas decades ago.
I hope whether or not Miami 21 passes, the unfair political pressures do not prevail, that the transition areas are
implemented, that 35 foot height limits in these C-1 zones are NOT implemented, and the City gains thc, proper
Urban Context vre all deserve, owners, neighbors, planners and elected officials.
Sincerely,
do
Rev ta, AIA
Principal
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
2950 SW 271h Avenue Sule 110 Miami, "Florida 33133 T.(305) 590-5D00 F (305) 590 -SCM inbOyevueka-archHectu e�com
ra. ?
MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION, INC.
February 12, 2008
Honorable Mayor Manuel Diaz
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133-5595
Re: Miami 21 /Height Limits
Dear Mayor Diaz:
Please be advised that the following is the approved position of the MiMo Biscayne Association relating to Miami 21
and the height limits along Biscayne Boulevard within the MiMo Historic District
MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION PROPOSED POSITION RELATING TO MIAMI 21:
The Minto Biscayne Association supports the Miami 21 concept and urges the City to move forward in their efforts to
update Miami 21 with the changes promised the community. Chapter 23, the blueprint of regulations and incentives for
historic districts, including MiMo Biscayne Boulevard needs to move forward and be approved to allow adaly ive reuse
of the current historic structures and relax the parking requirements so that projects within the District can move forward
during the current delay in the approval of the Miami 21 legislation.
Minto Biscayne Association supports a building height compromise within Miami 21 for the Bisca)me Boulevard
Historic District. We support a height limitation of 53 feet. However, construction on a case by case basis can. allow up
to a maximum of 70 feet in height in areas not abutting single family residences if parking for the building along with
additional parking the for the general public is included within the structure. As part of this compromise, MiMo
Biscayne Association urges the Miami City Commission to create buffer zones of less than the height limitations for new
construction abutting single family districts. Those buffer zones shall be compatible with the heights of the single
family homes.
The Minto Biscayne Association's recommendation is based upon the recognition that all new infill construction in the
MiMo historic district shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Miami's HEP Board. Such approvals shay. be based
strictly upon design compatibility with the existing architecture and the surrounding built environment.
Approved by a vote of Membership on February 11, 2008
We would appreciate appropriate consideration be given to our position.
Sincerely,
Fran Rollason, President
C: Commissioners J.. Sanchez, M. D. Sarnoff, M. Spence -Jones, A. Gonzalez, T. Regalado
+668 N. E. 74" Street, Miami, Florida 33138 305 758-614.4 emall: Minto on-BiB cotttc t.net mlov lMoSoidevard.org
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A.'fhompson
Mi
City Clerk
Bo
65CVNE 9DULEVARD
NTOWDBMICT
MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION, INC.
February 12, 2008
Honorable Mayor Manuel Diaz
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133-5595
Re: Miami 21 /Height Limits
Dear Mayor Diaz:
Please be advised that the following is the approved position of the MiMo Biscayne Association relating to Miami 21
and the height limits along Biscayne Boulevard within the MiMo Historic District
MIMO BISCAYNE ASSOCIATION PROPOSED POSITION RELATING TO MIAMI 21:
The Minto Biscayne Association supports the Miami 21 concept and urges the City to move forward in their efforts to
update Miami 21 with the changes promised the community. Chapter 23, the blueprint of regulations and incentives for
historic districts, including MiMo Biscayne Boulevard needs to move forward and be approved to allow adaly ive reuse
of the current historic structures and relax the parking requirements so that projects within the District can move forward
during the current delay in the approval of the Miami 21 legislation.
Minto Biscayne Association supports a building height compromise within Miami 21 for the Bisca)me Boulevard
Historic District. We support a height limitation of 53 feet. However, construction on a case by case basis can. allow up
to a maximum of 70 feet in height in areas not abutting single family residences if parking for the building along with
additional parking the for the general public is included within the structure. As part of this compromise, MiMo
Biscayne Association urges the Miami City Commission to create buffer zones of less than the height limitations for new
construction abutting single family districts. Those buffer zones shall be compatible with the heights of the single
family homes.
The Minto Biscayne Association's recommendation is based upon the recognition that all new infill construction in the
MiMo historic district shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Miami's HEP Board. Such approvals shay. be based
strictly upon design compatibility with the existing architecture and the surrounding built environment.
Approved by a vote of Membership on February 11, 2008
We would appreciate appropriate consideration be given to our position.
Sincerely,
Fran Rollason, President
C: Commissioners J.. Sanchez, M. D. Sarnoff, M. Spence -Jones, A. Gonzalez, T. Regalado
+668 N. E. 74" Street, Miami, Florida 33138 305 758-614.4 emall: Minto on-BiB cotttc t.net mlov lMoSoidevard.org
From: belmede760i4;aol.com
Date: Mon, 31 Au= 2009 18:06.07 -0400
To: <rollason6e iglide.net>
Subject: Re: 35 ST height limit fbr Biscayne
We're are unable to attend the meeting. but can furnish you with this quote:
"Pour story height limit not!"
"One of the more destructive influences on imagination and honest confrontation of
urbanism in our times of extreme overpopulation is the notion that buildings over four
stories degrade humanity and should be banned. A major principle behind ecological
cities is that higher living organisms are complex, three-dimensional entities.and an apt
model for the city structure, another one of those principles in nature that should be taken
seriously."
Ecocilies: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature by Richard Register Page 202
Antolin G. Carbonell, R.A.
Belle Meade Resident
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Fran Rollason
From: Ernie Cambo [ecambo@cpfinv com]
Sent: 78/28/2009 1:26 PM1
To: mannydiaz@ci miami 1 -is
Subject: RESIDENT OF THE UPPER EAST SIDE. VOTE NO TO 35 FEET
Mayor Manny Diaz, and the Honorable Lornmissioiers
The City needs a comprehensive plan like Miami 21, however the Biscayne Corridor will lose FAR value
if the 35 foot amendment is passed, it is not scare tactic, but a fact that the "as of right" building envelope
will shrink. if the FAR shrinks, the amount of inhabitable units will shrink accordingly: assuming a 15`%a Common
Area Factor and 1,000 SF per unit, effectively you will be left a larger common area and signifantfy less FAR
which will lead to dysfunctional business plans and valuations.
in 1999, 1 moved to Bay Point, within the first 45 days, a gentlemen jumped my B foot wall, for an attempted
breaking and entering, he was cracked out, my wife was home with my then 10 month old son.
Ten years later, we have a more functional boulevard, The City and the County spent 535MM to -create the-gatewFiv' ,
that gateway should be lined with ground level retail and apartments on top. You need to get up higher for units at the
2nd and 3" floor have historically been unattractive because of noise Another level of parking because of the property
depth
will be required, and then what, you will at 24 feet? You will be left with a parking garage sandwich? Retail, Parking,
and same expensive units on top of a flavved business model -
Without more eyes ball in the street, the Boulevard will not prosper. The entitlements are the
future of the boulevard and a promise of a better tomorrow for a more prosperous and vibrant
area.
Without that option, what will the future hold for those landowners? They will see no exit on Biscayne and be forced to
litigate to recover their investment. Irrespective of the financial markets, ability to develop, the potential promise
would be eliminated, and that is government encroaching on not lust property rights. but capital, retirement,
education, public works, police and fire, for those potential ad valorem tax revenue will never be realized, and that is
just flat out irresponsible of the City to impose their w,ll on these landowners and beneficiares of the next generation.
Regards
Ernie Cambo
4255 Lake Road
Miami, Ft 33137
ernie --ambo
principal
cpf investment group
297'+ rncfarlane road ft362
miami, fl 33133
305.460-6262 main
305.460.6.1€3 fax
r)u%nR1tiU
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.S on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.5 on 10-22-09
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Re:
Asian American Hotel Owners Association
7000 PEACHTREE DUNWOODY ROAD, BUILDING 7
ATLANTA, GEORGLA 30328
(404) 816-5759 PHONE
(404) 816-6260 FAX
W W W.AAHOA. COM
LAURA LEE BLAKE, ESQ.
AAHOA VICE PRESIDENT & GENERAL COUNSEL
(404) 419-8980 DIRECT
September 3, 2009
Miami 21 And Proposed Significant Height Restrictions in MiMo District
Dear Mr. Chair and City of Miami Commissioners:
On behalf of our 9,700 members of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association ("AAHOA"),
many of whom are located in the Miami, Florida area, we are writing to express our opposition to the
proposed zoning change that has been offered by Commissioner Marc C. Samoff for the MiMo District.
I. Commissioner Sarnoff's Claims Defy Common Sense And Legal Authority
We have been informed that Commissioner Sarnoff has proposed a severe reduction in the height
limitations for buildings from 90 feet down to 35 feet — which is more than a 61 percent (61%)
reduction for buildings in the MiMo District! If passed, this severe height restriction on buildings
through a specific action of the City Commissioners would inordinately burden the existing uses or vested
rights to specific uses of real property in the MiMo District. Remarkably, however, Commissioner
Sarnoff is claiming that if this zoning change is passed, (1) no lawsuits will be filed, and (2) if there
are any lawsuits, the property owners will never win. (See Commissioner Sarnoff s Letter dated
September 1, 2009.) Commissioner Sarnoff further argues that it is just the "legal posturing by attorneys"
who are making such claims, and there is no justification for any Commissioner to have an "incorrect
fear" that the City could face millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Regardless of whether or not you are an attorney, common sense will tell you that many prop
owners will sue for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages if this Commission suddenly passes a
law that imposes a 61% reduction in the height restrictions on buildings in the premier MiMo District of
Miami. As explained below, despite Commissioner Samoff's assertions to the contrary, there would also
be excellent grounds on which any Court of law could find in favor of the Minto property owners and
issue large awards against the City.
H. About AAHOA
As many of you are aware, AAHOA has more than 9,700 members who own 22,000 hotels across the
United States, which are worth $60 billion in property value. This is almost forty percent (40%) of all
hotels in the country. AAHOA members are first- and second -generation Indian Americans, who began
immigrating to the U.S. in the 1970s. At that time, many of them had little or no money, but they used
their life savings to buv hotels.
As small business owners, our members are now creating or supporting more than one million iohs in
this country. They are living the American dream. AAHOA members own and operate everything from
small independent motels to full-service hotels all across this nation. AAHOA members are dedicated to
providing great accommodations and customer service to their guests, who visit us from every state in the
nation, and from countries around the world. (See enclosed "About AAHOA" materials)
III. AAHOA Members in the MiMo District and Throughout The City Are Concerned About
Commissioner Sarnoff s Proposal
AAHOA has many strong members in the Miami area, including in the MiMo District. They have
expressed concern that if this zoning change is passed in the District, they will suffer significant damages.
As explained below, a limitation on the use of a property is actionable under the law_
A. Commissioner Sarnoff s Proposed Zoning Change Will Inordinately Burden The
Existing Use of Hotels Owned by AAHOA Members, And Their Vested Rights To A
Specific Use Of Their Properties
Case law suggests that a change in the zoning code will not necessarily constitute a taking. However; the
type, size and magnitude of the zoning change, and the expectation of the property owners, will often
determine whether such a change constitutes a taking or confiscation.
Based on Commissioner Sarnoff s proposed significant zoning change, which will result in a 61 %
reduction in height limitations for properties in the MiMo District, it is clear that AAHOA members will
suffer a resulting limitation in the use of their properties, which means that the enactment of this new
zoning change will violate the Bert Harris Act. Specifically, the Bert Harris Act provides as follows:
"When a specific action of a governmental entity has inordinately burdened an existin
use of real property or a vested right to a specific use of real property, the property
owner of that real property is entitled to relief, which may include compensation for the
actual loss to the fair market value of the real property caused by the action of the
government...." (§70.001(2), FLA. Stat. (2006); emphasis added.)
Numerous complex multi-million dollar lawsuits have been filed in Florida ui recent years to determine
the meaning of the highlighted terms in the Bert Harris Act above, including "inordinately burdened,"
"existing use," and "vested right." Indeed, in the September 1, 2009 letter that was issued by
Commissioner Sarnoff, he cites to more than ten (10) cases from the past ten to twenty years which he
believes support his position. Without commenting on each of these cases, suffice it to say that impact of
specific governmental actions on property owners under the Bert Harris Act and various takings laws is
always a hotly -contested issue, and the outcome will depend on the specific facts of each particular case.
Under the Bert Harris Act, the term "inordinate burden" is defined, in relevant part, as governmental
action limiting the use of real property, "such that the property owner is pennanently unable to attain the
reasonable, investment -backed expectation for the existing use of real property or a vested right to a
specific use." (§70.001(3)(e), FLA. Stat. (2006); emphasis added.)
In this case, if passed, the zoning change will mean that AAHOA members will be unable to satisfy their
reasonable expectations concerning the investments they made to purchase their properties, and they will
face an inordinate burden as a result. Consequently, based on fact that the zoning change will result in a
significant 61% reduction in height limitations, coupled with the fact that it is specifically targeting
owners in the MiMo District and not others throughout the City of Miami, means that property owners
will be compelled to file claims to protect their rights and seek millions in darnages for having to beair a
disproportionate share of the public burden.
B. Commissioner Sarnoff's Proposal Does Not Adequately Consider the "Neighborhoaid
Context" of the MiMo Area and Biscayne Boulevard
In enacting zoning changes, it is important for the City Conunission to consider the "neighborhood
context" in order to determine the appropriateness of their actions. In this case, it is significant to note
that Bayside and other surrounding residential neighborhoods have homes that are over the 35
height restriction that Commissioner Sarnoff is trying to impose in the MiMo District.
2
Moreover, as you are aware, Biscayne Boulevard is not a quiet residential street for which severe height
restrictions on buildings need to be imposed to protect the residents. Indeed, from its initial
development until the present day, Biscayne Boulevard has been a maior commercial road — which
runs from New York City to Key West, Florida. It is the gatewav to downtown Miami, and it
separates the East and West side neighborhoods.
Based on these facts, it is clear that severely uniting the height of buildings along such a major
commercial thoroughfare will inordinately burden the affected property owners who purchased their land
based on this prime location, and with the reasonable expectations that they would realize a return on their
investments — not be facing an unexpected 61% reduction in building height limitations.
C. Commissioner Sarnoff s Proposed Specific Action Unfairly Targets Property Owners In
the MiMo District, And Takes Away Their Property Rights
In addition to the inordinate burden that MiMo property owners will face from a passage of
Commissioner Sarnoff's zoning change, they will also bear the burden of discriminatory treatment
because they own property in the District. In other words, since MiMo is being targeted as the District in
which a severe 61% reduction in height limitations will be imposed, many other property owners across
the City will be able to maintain their property values and not be burdened with this significant change.
Notwithstanding Commissioner Sarnoff's assertions, it goes without saying that his proposed zoning
change with a 61% reduction in height limitations will create a furor among property owners in the MiMo
District, and unnecessary legal problems for the City. As the Commission is well aware, when litigation
is filed, no one wins. It is expensive, time consuming, and often unnecessary.
AAHOA urges the Commission to carefully consider all of its options before rushing to approve this
zoning change. Indeed, the passage of this proposal will have far-reaching effects, including on each of
the Districts represented by the individual Commissioners.
AAHOA welcomes an opportunity to meet with the City Council members, and discuss how best to
address the concerns of all. We also strongly encourage you to oppose Commissioner Sarnoff's zoning
change for the good of the property owners in MiMo, for the surrounding Districts, and for the entire City
of Miami.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this important issue.
Very Truly Yours,
Laura Lee Blake, Esq.
Vice President, Fair Franchising and Government ,affairs,
& General Counsel
Cc: Hemant "Henry" D. Patel
AAHOA Treasurer / Director at Large
Miami, Florida (District 2)
N
A LEGEND
u uwui cm uurts
RP RW
— — — —
aPEdAI PUBLIC I—Es
C -c
page 17 of me vnut
Atlas.teference to and
by gmgnce Ocdinanc
as amended, ofthe City
Florida, adopted lv c
1
15
[47 -z -4,s- � �
o00
OQ@9@@ e�I'99@9@9'� � e
@mOR @@OCdaaw