HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittal-response to EARSubmitted Into the public
record in connection with
Miami Neighborhoods United item Pe- / on /2 9-e y
Response to EAR of the City of Miami Dated November 2004 Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Miami Neighborhoods United, having met with Messrs. Provance and Ruck of the Planning
Department, requests that the Commission direct the Planning Department staff to work with
Miami Neighborhoods United in a continual dialogue to address our neighborhood and other
issues relating to improvements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP).
For example:
1. Future Land Use Policy should specifically exclude from the Urban Infill Area designation
(in addition to Virginia Key, etc.) both single-family and duplex residential sections in
residential neighborhoods. This FLU Policy should also be modified to specify that single-
family and duplex residential sections within residential neighborhoods are not part of
"mixed -use neighborhoods" and will be protected from commercial and higher density
residential development. To this end, existing timeframes for sunsetting of all existing,
legal non -conforming uses and elements should be maintained.
2. Transportation concurrency must be specifically addressed in the Future Land Use element,
and land use regulations thereunder, to plan population growth by area within the City
(including limitation of permit issuance) in accordance with actual usage of existing arterial
and corridor roadways rather than on capacity including underutilized public transit.
Growth must be contained and managed during development of the public transit
infrastructure in order to minimize the economic cost of congestion and preserve health and
quality of life for citizens and visitors.
3. Concurrency with all other Levels of Service (in particular, relative to current capacity of
public schools, parking and parks) must also be taken into consideration more effectively in
the Future Land Use element, and land use regulations thereunder, most likely through
planned growth limitations referred to in (2.) above.
4. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space and the Coastal Management elements must be
revamped to provide emphasis on:
A.) preservation of remaining vacant and coastal land in the City;
B.) proactive growth of parks, recreation and open spaces and related facilities with
increased Levels of Service Standards;
C.) reversal of proposed changes such as to limit "recreational activities that require
public facilities and infrastructure to areas where capacity is available" (Policy LU-
1.7); and
D.) preservation of remaining coastal lands — prohibiting alterations of the existing
coastline by landfill, artificial or `natural' barriers, so as to preserve physical and
visual access and recreational use.
5. The addition of a complete new step, in urban planning and regulation processes, for
concerned citizen groups (including Miami Neighborhoods United and others) to review
drafts/request modifications/review revised drafts/ and finally concur or dissent in writing
on each plan/regulation/exception before the Planning Department's first presentation to the
Planning Advisory Board or City Commission. This step should be added to the existing
processes for the EAR, Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning atlas changes, zoning text
amendments, Major Use Special Permits, and all street or ally closures. In addition, it is
recommended that concerned citizen groups participate during the initial drafting stages
with both the Planning Department and outside consultants, in order to minimize
unnecessary conflicts during later approval stages. Consensus building and transparency
from the outset will greatly improve the overall process in both costs and time.
0/-- 6 /,2d'7