HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittal - 5STATEMENT OF CASE IN OPPOSITION OF A
MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
TERRAZAS RIVER PARK VILLAGE PROJECT
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1861
NORTHWEST SOUTH
RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE
COMPRISED OF TWO
BUILDINGS (ONE 20-STORY AND ONE 27-
STORY) HOUSING 324 TOTAL
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 522
TOTAL PARKING SPACES
July 22, 2004
Submitted by: River Club Condominium Association
SUBMITTED INTO THE M ami, FL 33125River Drive, #29
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM Pz•a3 ON ---°�
O4-aa-7a i- ai)-5-
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR TERRAZAS RIVER PARK VILLAGE PROJECT
1.) The development will NOT be consistent with the adopted Miami
Comprehensive Plan.
a.) The development conflicts with many of the goals of Future Land Use of
the MCNP which is to:
i. maintain a land use pattern that protects and enhances the quality
of life in the residential neighborhood
This project is an overwhelming break from the current land
use pattern of the neighborhood.
ii. minimize land use conflicts
The height, density, and scale of this project conflicts with the
lower scale, lower density of the adjacent and surrounding
area.
iii. protect and conserve the city's significant natural and coastal
resources
b.) Policy LU-1.1.3 of the MCNP refers to the protection of all areas of the
city from:
i. The encroachment of incompatible land uses.
Not to be mistaken with zoning. The current land use in the
neighborhood is predominantly low scale, single-family
homes.
ii. The adverse impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that
disrupt or degrade natural or man-made amenities
This project disrupts the current low scale, single family and
conservation land use of the adjacent area, and degrades
2
Sewell Park's natural amenity of a landscape free of
encroaching buildings towering above its open spaces.
c.) Policy LU-1.4.1: The city will continue efforts toward reinforcing the
identity and cohesiveness of each district.
i. This project does NOT reinforce an identity, it drastically changes
it with its size being out of scale with everything in its vicinity.
d.) Objective LU-1.5: Land development regulations will protect the city's
unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural
heritage.
i. The Miami River has been recognized as the oldest natural
landmark in Southeast Florida, and Sewell Park as of the most
beautiful, historic and environmentally significant parks. This
project does not protect the park's current natural resource of a
landscape free of obstructive and overwhelming structures
towering over it.
e.) Policy LU-1.6.9: land development regulations will establish
mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of future
development.
i. We have yet to see what mechanisms have been, or will be, used
to mitigate the colossal height and scale of this project in relation
to the surrounding area.
f.) Interpretation of Future Land Use Plan Map states that land use
designations are general designations that may include more than one
zoning category. All activities and uses with each designation are
supposed to be compatible with each other by virtue of their scale,
intensity, and character
i. The developer has not provided elevation renderings comparing
the overall height and scale of Terrazas as compared to the single
3
family and townhome residences in the neighborhood, therefore
an accurate decision as to scale, intensity, and character cannot be
made.
ii. There is no finding of fact or justification as to how a high -density
zone is compatible in scale, intensity, and character with a
conservation zone and historical park.
g.) Housing Policy 1.1.5 : intended to preserve and enhance the general
appearance and character of the city's neighborhoods.
h.) Housing Policy 1.2.7 : The City will continue to enforce, and where
necessary, to strengthen those sections of the zoning ordinance that are
intended to preserve and enhance the general appearance and character
of the city's neighborhoods.
i. The key words being "preserve and enhance". This project does
not preserve the low scale, single-family character of the
neighborhood; and rather than enhancing it, it is a radical
alteration that will damage our neighborhood character.
4
2.) The development is NOT consistent with the Miami River Corridor Urban
Infill Plan (MRCUIP), which is one of the reviews for approval of
developments along the Miami River.
i. The MRCUIP incorporates, in whole or in part, in letter or intent,
the previous Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, as well as other
plans and initiatives that had been recognized and adopted by the
City of Miami.
ii. The predominant theme throughout the Urban Infill Plan's Vision
for the River is to protect, maintain, and reduce the impact of new
development on, and compatible development with, the existing
scale and character of the residential neighborhoods.
The following are comments from the "Award Winning" Miami River Corridor Urban
Infill Plan (Exhibit # )
1. The sole measure of success for this plan is the ability of the local government
to implement the recommendations within.
2. While the predominant zoning in the study area is broadly classified as residential,
the allowable uses, heights and densities are often incompatible in scale.
3. Through the zoning analysis it has been determined that there are zoning
designations within and adjacent to these neighborhoods that allow for
development inconsistent with the historic character and scale of the
neighborhood.
4. the expansion and scale of new development within the neighborhood is indeed
impacting the historic character and human scale of the district.
5. Establishment of a neighborhood conservation district to regulate new
construction ... through the establishment of criteria relating to siting, massing,
articulation, and other characteristics to ensure compatibility with the area's
historic neighborhood character and scale.
6. Throughout the neighborhood, height restrictions should be applied to effect a
stronger compatibility and visual connectivity between historic structures and new
5
development and to ensure that the potential historic district, park, and riverfront
are not overshadowed by high-rise development.
7. Consideration should be given... for development that...respects the scale and
character of the ... neighborhood.
8. For areas identified as significant due to their scale, history, architecture, or
environmental characteristics but not meeting criteria for historic designation.,
consideration should be given to establishment of a neighborhood conservation
district or districts to provide protection from incompatible new construction or
alterations.
9. ... throughout the neighborhood, consideration should be given to establishing
height and FAR limits to help protect the scale and character of this neighborhood.
10.The appropriateness of high density residential located directly on the River is
highly questionable and should be reconsidered.
11. Waterfront development in Allapattah... should be oriented toward low- to
medium -density mixed use (not exceeding the existing intensity of NW 17th
Avenue)
12.... incorporate design guidelines to insure that future development is compatible
and of a scale appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood.
13.While the zoning of these corridors typically allows for ... high density residential
use, existing uses are generally low in scale ...
14.Once again, the sole measure of success for this plan is the ability of the local
government to implement the recommendations within.
6
The height of Terrazas is not consistent with the scale or character of the
neighborhood by any means or measure. Exhibit #
iii. The MRCUIP's prototype for the middle -river portion calls for
mid -rise development. See Exhibit #
iv. The MRCUIP states that "South Florida's most populous
neighborhoods are located within the Miami River Corridor",
which questions the necessity of further increasing the density so
drastically. It states that "the Miami River is a Destination
Landscape", which questions the case for such large, high-rise
developments drastically changing the aesthetic landscape. It
states that "the Miami River is our heritage", which should call for
us to protect it from this type of large scale, invasive
development. It describes Sewell Park as "...one of the City of
Miami's most beautiful, historic, and environmentally significant
parks", which should beg us to preserve its natural character from
this type of encroachment.
b.) Brett Bibeau, Assistant Managing Director of the Miami River
Commission, has previously stated on record that the middle river is
appropriate and/or intended for mid -rise development. (minutes of
Planning and Advisory Board meeting, 16th of June, 2004, and Planning
and Advisory Workshop for the Miami River, 30th of July, 2004)
c.) The Planning and Advisory Board has stated that one of the problems
along this area of the river is the inconsistency and incompatibility of
high-rise development with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
(minutes of workshop meeting, 30th of July, 2004). This calls into
question the legitimacy of their approval for this project.
d.) Given the aforementioned, we submit that the endorsement or approval
of the Miami River Commission be disregarded on the grounds that the
approved scale of the development is blatantly contradictory to the letter,
spirit, and intent of the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan, which
was officially and legally adopted by the Miami River Commission as its
Strategic Plan pursuant to applicable state law on September 9, 2002.
8
3.) The development will have only a debatable impact on the economy of the
city.
a.) All projects have a temporary favorable impact on the economy of the
city during construction, but once completed, the continuing impact is
questionable and debatable, and given the history of the city, often non -
eventful at least, detrimental at worst. Based on a Draft resolution dated
6/16/04, the project is stated to generate approximately $984,420 in tax
revenues, a mere two tenths of one percent of the General Fund Revenue
of the recommended FY 2004 Budget of $417,326,310. In addition, the
estimate of tax revenue and favorable economic impact is a gross figure.
The projections do not account for the additional public expense of
police, fire and Emergency Medical Services, maintenance or
replacement of bridges and roadways, schools, and other public services
as a result of the increasing population and traffic density.
b.) The development will further increase the flood of new projects
announced, or currently being developed, creating a glut of new
residences that could lead to overall price depreciation in real estate
values. At a recent Commission Hearing on May 6, 2004, expert
testimony was given indicating that Miami presently had 14,000 unsold
condominium units on the market. Given the projected 15-20 thousand
additional units under development and/or under consideration, and the
over 2000 units slated within our half mile area, this statistic points to a
very credible and highly possible scenario of an oversupply of properties
leading to reduced prices that would adversely affect the real estate
market and economy of the city.
9
4.) The development will have an adverse impact on our neighborhood and
quality of life because of the increased traffic. The project will NOT
efficiently use public transportation facilities to alleviate this.
i. There is no definition or metric used to describe or determine
what is "efficient" use; there is also no definition or metric to
determine the exact distance that qualifies as "close proximity".
ii. There was no study provided to determine what potential
percentage of future residents will use public transportation. The
economic demographic that can afford these residences typically
have a miniscule percentage of public transportation ridership, if
at all.
iii. There is no current or historical study provided to determine what
percentage of residents who live within a predetermined definition
of "close proximity" to their place of employment, or other urban
core center, actually use public transportation;
iv. The closest metrorail station is 1.4 miles away; hardly what one
could consider a "close proximity" for pedestrians.
v. No study was provided to determine the impact on the Level of
Service of public transportation from other, high -density
developments going on in the immediate area, which would
adversely affect variables in the determination of efficiency, and
contrary to the Transportation Element of the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan which calls for coordination
with projected development and redevelopment, and other similar
characteristics of land use that have an impact on transportation.
10
5.) The development will NOT favorably affect the need for people to find
adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment.
a.) There is no clarification as to what the term "adequate" means or
implies, and the developer has not provided any evidence to that effect.
b.) The project is NOT consistent with the Housing element of the MNCP
which states:
i. The Goal of the Housing element is to "increase the supply
of...affordable...housing for low and moderate income
households.."
ii. The Objective of the housing element of the MNCP is to "provide
a local regulatory, investment, and neighborhood environment
that will assist the private sector in increasing the stock of
affordable housing within the city..."
iii. Policy LU-1.2.2: state that The City's land development policies
will be consistent with affordable housing objectives and policies
adopted in the Housing Element of the MCNP.
iv. According to the Florida Department of Labor & Employment
Security (January 2001), the median household income for the
City of Miami is $23,483; the median household income for
Miami -Dade $35,966. Given the attached Economic
Affordability study, Exhibit # this project does not conform with
the letter, spirit, or intent of the Housing element of the MCNP's
Goal, Objective, and Policy.
11
c.) There is no definition or metric for "readily accessible", and therefore
subject to interpretation and highly subjective. The developer has
provided no evidence, or a permissible standard, to show compliance
with this requirement.
d.) No local market demand study was provided to determine what
percentage of people working in the mentioned urban cores
(Civic/Medical Center and Downtown) would actually choose, or are
capable of affording, to live in this development, in support of the
project's claims of housing availability close to places of employment.
This development is not consistent with the aforementioned goal,
objective, and policies of the MNCP, or the requirements of
affordable housing, as over 78% of the population of the City of
Miami (based on U.S. Census figures) cannot afford this housing,
thereby increasing the demographic, human, and moral threat of
gentrification. See Exhibit #
12
6.) The development will NOT have a favorable impact on the environment
and natural resources of the city.
a.) The development is NOT consistent with the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space element of the MCNP, which states:
i. Policy PR-1.1.3: The City's land development regulation policies
will consider the impact of future development that significantly
increases residential densities on the quality...of neighborhood
parks and recreation services.
An increase of over 250% in residential density qualifies as a
significant increase in density.
The project has submitted no evidence as to how its height,
scale, and density preserves or enhances the quality of the
park.
ii. Objective PR-1.5: Develop and enhance the quality of parks and
open spaces within the city's downtown and other neighborhoods.
iii. Goal PR-2: Develop public parks and open spaces that are
aesthetically appealing and enhance the character and image of
the city.
This development does NOT provide an appealing aesthetic to
the park or the neighborhood due to its height, bulk, and scale.
iv. Objective PR-2.1: Improve the aesthetic qualities of parks and
recreation facilities and preserve unique natural landscape features
of neighborhood parks.
Views and view corridors, sunlight, and surroundings are part
of a natural landscape. This development offers nothing that
preserves or enhances these inherent and current qualities of
Sewell Park.
13
There is no Shadow Study or findings with regards to possible
adverse effects on the canopy and vegetation of the park
resulting from loss of sunlight.
Based on information provided by the US Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department, the completed
development will begin to cast Sewell Park in shadow by 2:00 PM
EST, and completely engulf the park in shadow before 6:00 PM
EST, on June 21 St' the longest day of sunshine for Miami, Florida.
Sunset on that particular day is 8:15 PM. This adversely affects the
park's natural amenity of sunlight, views free from large scale, man
made visual barriers and buildings, and could adversely affect the
health of the parks canopy due to reduced sunlight.
The park is a Conservation District: an environmentally sensitive
area which is to be left in an essentially natural state. The
development will tower above, and physically overwhelm the park,
drastically impacting the aesthetic quality, open space, and natural
landscape of the park, which is its current natural state.
The Miami River Greenway Action Plan Executive Summary states that the "The Miami
River is the oldest natural landmark in southeast Florida", and the Miami River Corridor
Urban Infill Plan describes Sewell Park as "...one of the city of Miami's most beautiful,
historic, and environmentally significant parks." We ask that you treat it as such.
14
7.) The development WILL adversely affect living conditions in the
neighborhood.
a.) The development will adversely affect the living conditions in terms of
increased density and congestion. The development's density will
conflict with the Transportation element of the MCNP, the goal of which
is to maintain an effective traffic circulation network and protects and
enhances the natural environment.
a.) The Traffic Impact analysis used in the approval process was
flawed, and to date is obsolete due to several factors, and therefore
should not be used in determining effective traffic circulation. The
reasons are as follows: See Exhibit # "Traffic Analysis"
b.) The study was done for only a one day period, with a single peak period
turning movement study of 4:00-6:00pm, on July 24, 2003. A one day study
is insufficient to determine an average pattern or amount of traffic flow as
there can be significant variances between days.
c.) A one day study during a summer month fails to take into account the
additional congestion of morning and afternoon traffic due to the school
session.
d.) As far as can be determined, the report failed to include the impact of
bridge raisings, and the number, frequency, and length of said raisings. The
future projections do not include projections for further, future growth of
the Miami River in terms of cargo shipments and the positive shipping
impact from the Miami River dredging, that would in turn increase the
number of ships and their frequency, and therefore the number of bridge
raisings.
e.) The study area was too small to realistically determine impact. The study
area did not include the following intersections and corridors, which are
15
critical, due to their immediate proximity and location, to access the main
work centers of the hospital/courthouse, downtown, 836 East, and I95:
i. NW 17th Avenue and NW North River Drive
ii. NW 17th Avenue and NW 14 Street
iii. NW 12th Avenue and NW 11 Street (to access 836 and I95 to
downtown)
iv. NW 12th Avenue and NW 12 Street (The only direct access to the
neighborhood from SR836 and I95)
v. NW 12th Avenue and NW 7th Street (to access 836 and I95 to
downtown, this intersection already has a Level Of Service below the
minimum requirement)
f.) The study reflects only the Phase 1 buildout of the project. It does not
include Phase 2.
g.) The Metrobus routes stated in the report are irrelevant, as none of the routes
come through NW North River Drive, and the roadway is too narrow to
comfortably and efficiently accommodate one. There is no guarantee, or
even an estimate, as to what percentage of new residents of a luxury
condominium would use public transportation.
16
The increased congestion that will impact our neighborhood will be far
worse than the impact report indicates.
h.) The report stated it took into account projects approved but not yet
completed in the vicinity. This is fundamentally flawed because projects
that are being considered, whether planned, still in the planning and
development stages, still in the approval stages, etc., will greatly impact
traffic, and therefore any future projections made by this report are outdated
and therefore invalid. There are at least four developments currently
approved, or awaiting approval within the immediate area:
i. Phase 2 of the Terrazas development with 120 units, with at least
another 150 vehicles; same location.
ii. Hurricane Cove with over 1000 units, with at least 1500 vehicles;
less than 100 meters away.
iii. Royal Atlantic Development with over 600 units, with at least 900
vehicles; 0.7(seven tenths) of a mile away.
iv. The Miami Riverhouse condominium, with over 220 units and over
300 vehicles; half a mile away.
v. Other projects that are known to be in conceptual planning and
development are Brisas Del Rio condominium development (the
Florida Yacht Basin).
vi. Determining that a project with 200 residential units (Phase 1 only),
and at least 250 to 300 vehicles, will only generate an additional 71
vehicular trips cannot be realistically and statistically accurate. This
only represents about 35% of the projected resident population.
17
Based on the aforementioned points and concerns, I submit that the traffic impact
analysis prepared for Phase I of Terrazas should not be considered as an accurate
analysis of present, and more importantly the future traffic impact in the immediate area,
and thus cannot be used in the determination to approve the Major Use Special Permit. A
new study should be initiated that takes into account and consideration all the concerns
brought we have brought regarding traffic. Anything less would be recklessly short-
sighted, as well as contrary to the Land Use Policies of the MCNP with regards to the
adverse impacts of future land use disrupting or degrading man made amenities, and the
mitigation of potentially adverse impacts on future developments. Failure to take into
account additional future growth and development, and plan, revise, and develop
accordingly, will result in the same calamitous density that has caused other congestion
problems in the city and county with other developments.
vii. The Transportation element of the MCNP under TR-1.8 states that
"the Transportation Element shall be coordinated with...projected
development and redevelopment...and other similar
characteristics of land use that have an impact on transportation".
Why then would the city accept a traffic impact analysis that fails
to account for, and coordinate with, already known projects that
will be developed within the same approximate time frame, and
have a cumulative, adverse effect on transportation, commute
times and congestion, emergency evacuation, and levels of
service?
18
The project is TOO BIG and our neighborhood is TOO SMALL. The project
will negatively impact our living conditions and quality of life in the
neighborhood.
1.) The completed project will increase our residential density by over
250%
2.) The development's size and scale will physically overwhelm the River
Club Townhomes, which make up over 40% of the neighborhood
residences, and engulf them in shadow almost the entire morning. Based
on information provided by the US Naval Observatory Astronomical
Applications Department, the completed development will cast the River
Club Townhomes in shadow until 11:00 am, with half of the
development still in shadow until noon, on June 21 st' the longest day of
sunshine for Miami, Florida. Sunrise on that same day is at 6:30 AM
EST. See Exhibit #
3.) The development will have an adverse impact on the overall appearance
and property values of the River Club residents as a result of having
such a large scale building abutting less than 20 feet away from our
property, smothering the low scale character of the River Club
townhomes and the single family residential character of the overall
neighborhood.
4.) It will drastically increase the density of our neighborhood, increasing
traffic congestion, reducing our natural amenity of sunlight, reducing
our privacy, and changing the scale and overall character of our
neighborhood. It will envelope the tranquility of the residents with noise
and dust pollution during the approximate 2 years of construction.
Furthermore, it will cause increases in our association expenses due to
increased maintenance during construction. It will also cause increases
in our personal and residential expenses in terms of higher taxes and
19
higher fees for utilities, public services, and home, automobile &
property insurance, as a result of such a drastic increase in density.
5.) There are no provisions or guarantees that any impact fees paid by the
developer will be used for the specific benefit of the neighborhood to
offset the adverse impact from the project, both during and after
construction. These fees should go solely towards mitigating and
alleviating the adverse impact to living conditions of the neighborhood.
20
SUMMARY COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO A MAJOR USE SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR TERRAZAS RIVER PARK VILLAGE
The project fails to provide sufficient evidence to support a favorable case regarding
positive impacts on the economy, public services, environment, and housing supply
of the city pursuant to Article 17 for Major Use Special Permits.
1.) It is marginally favorable or neutral on the economy, generating an estimated
BUT unidentified 20 full time jobs, a minute gross contribution to the general
funds revenue to the city with no figure estimated for its net effect. The project
does not provide an estimate as to the economic impact to the surrounding
area, or identify the commercial area that would benefit, from the increased
population density.
2.) It will have an adverse effect on public services from its increased density.
Given the aforementioned comments on the traffic analysis, and the
inadequacy and deficiencies mentioned as well as the one pursuant to the
Transportation Element of the MCNP requiring coordination with other
development and re -development that have an impact on transportation, we
state that the project fails to provide an accurate projection as to the future
impact on this public service.
3.) It will have an adverse effect on the environment and natural resources due to
its size and scale. It will drastically change the character and context of the
neighborhood, the majority of which is single family, as well as the
conservation area encompassed by Sewell Park. Although the property zoning
and floor area ratios may allow this large scale development, those guidelines
are only maximums, and NOT AUTOMATIC ENTITLEMENTS . This project
does not address the encroachment of incompatible land uses, nor the adverse
21
impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade natural or
man-made amenities, pursuant to the Land Use Policies of the MCNP.
4.) It will have a neutral to adverse effect on the housing supply of the city by
failing to provide the type of "affordable housing" as required by the Land Use
and Housing Policies of the MCNP.
The project fails to provide sufficient evidence to support a favorable case as it
relates to Article 5 of the Zoning Code regarding Planned Use Developments. It is
NOT consistent because,
6.) It is not an appropriate or harmonious variety in physical development
because of its large scale and density in relation to the neighborhood
scale and context. It does not provide for an adequate transition from the
low scale, single-family context and characteristics of the neighborhood.
See Exhibit# The overall height of the project makes it the tallest
residential or commercial building along this east -west corridor between
7th avenue and the west coast of Florida.
7.) It does not improve the environment by nature of its height and scale,
overwhelming the single-family residences with its size and engulfing
the park with its mass, in addition to drastically changing the overall
neighborhood character. The project fails to answer how it will enhance
the conservation nature or quality of Sewell Park, pursuant to the
policies of the MCNP.
8.) It does not provide for general housing needs in the city as a whole.
22
Increasing density and congestion, drastically altering neighborhood character,
development that is out of scale and context with the surrounding area, reducing the
aesthetic and natural qualities of environmentally sensitive conservation areas and
historical landmarks, and developing housing that is economically unaffordable to
more than three quarters of the population is not in the best interests of the general
welfare of the City.
The development conflicts with Article 13 of the Zoning Code, designed to protect
single family neighborhoods from the adverse effects caused by developments that are
out of scale and character. The project does not respond to the character and scale of its
surroundings. Drawings, elevations, and exhibits fail to adequately address the impact
created in relationship within the neighborhood context to evaluate size, scale, and
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
The project also fails to adequately respond to the Design Review Criteria pursuant to
Section 1305. Specifically, it fails to respond to the physical contextual environment
taking into consideration urban form. The current physical contextual environment is
predominantly one of low scale single-family homes, two story townhomes, and a
conservation zone.
Given the comments, points, facts, exhibits, and references provided with regards to
the disposition of this project's application, we request that the commission at this
time defer the Major Use Special Permit for this project, primarily on the issue of its
incompatible height, scale, density, and character, and the adverse impacts it will
cause to the neighborhood. We ask that the commission exercise its powers to
prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to protect
neighboring properties, including, but not limited to, height.
23
We request that the commission make findings of scale, neighborhood character,
context and compatibility, and neighborhood and environmental impact; that such
findings be justified and governed by objective, permissible, legally and
professionally accepted standards; and that such findings be publicly stated for the
record.
We the neighborhood also request that all impact fees that may be required from, or
imposed upon, the developer, be reserved solely for the neighborhood; to be
administered towards projects and capital improvements to the surrounding
neighborhood for the repair, rehabilitation, enhancement, and overall benefit of the
impacted neighborhood.
24