Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-1February 24, 2005 City Commission Meeting on Zoning and Planning Public Hearing regarding Items PZ.8 First Reading and PZ.9 First Reading Biscayne 21 is the name of the home where we, a group of neighbors, have joined together to address our concerns about these two recommended variances in question. We are here to request that you DEFER on passing these variances. We strongly oppose the zoning variance that you have been asked to review today. We urge you to defer its First Reading until better communication about the project has taken place between the developers and the community. As you know, this variance is necessary to allow Royal Palm Communities to build their proposed project as submitted in their December 2004 MUSP application. We are concerned about the apparent lack of height limits. We are not in agreement with the size and scale of the project. Most of us never were from the start. And we are even more vehemently opposed now that the developers are cramming the same immense tower proposed in August into a property that is now 26% less net area. I argue that members of our community were not made adequately aware of the magnitude of this development. Those marketing the project created false impressions and encouraged misunderstandings. Significant civil opposition to this project as defined DOES exist, IS real, and will only grow if our issues are not addressed. These developers continuously overstate certain desirable aspects of the project while completely understating the drawbacks that will negatively impact the quality of life at Biscayne 21 and for other local residents. We have high hopes that democratic processes within our community, more specifically our City of Miami and our Edgewater district, will let our voices be heard. We are here because Edgewater residents, silent far too long, demand more active involvement in community and land development planning and zoning issues that impact us. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM fz, ON 02-1-i-o‘ 2 We are here to contribute in positive ways and, like you our City Commissioners, are excited to see our neighborhood evolve and develop in some very positive ways. Many of us feel like we live in a place now where development is out of control. We have seen historic homes torn down in nearby streets and have developed a bad case of learned helplessness, or a belief that there is just nothing that we can do. And this seems to be exactly what developers, like Royal Palm want. Why did we just come to realize that the overwhelming majority of us share common concerns but yet failed to express those until right now? The answer is complex, but I will break it down into 4 answers that relate to poor public communication that has kept us quiet. First, as a community, Edgewater seems to be increasingly becoming more fractured. Residents of other areas in the Upper East Side have benefited from solid grassroots organizations. Morningside and Belle Meade are just two examples of neighborhoods with strong histories of mobilization to protect residential rights. Edgewater has lacked this same grassroots power structure, BUT we are NOT an urban wasteland devoid of community and history. Much to the contrary as you will learn today when you meet us. We intend to jump-start the momentum necessary to increase residential community participation in the planning of our community and home. Second, despite what these developers say, there simply has not been enough open three- way dialogue between all of our area's developers, the city and its original Edgewater residents. Third, whatever dialogue that has taken place has not trickled down to all those concerned. Believe it or not, many neighbors just didn't know about the enormous magnitude of the Paramount project. I first learned of it last fall from my mother who lives in New York and told me how she had heard about some fancy condo near where I live that would have elevators to each residential unit. Fourth, I argue that the dialogue and information that DID trickle down was mostly about misperceptions or half -of -the -story impressions about the development project in question. Let me give you some examples. The developers spread the good news around the community that Paramount was all about townhouses. But they understated the 46-story tower, and the fact that townhouse units would only make up less than 2% of the total units. The developers spread the good news that they preserved one historic home, Miami's famous Something About Mary house. Submitted Into the public record in connection with item?Z-?__onfL Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk But they understated the demolition of other historic homes that once belonged to "Mary's" next door neighbors. They spread the good news of their intentions to keep plenty of green spaces. But they understated the long shadows to be cast in all directions, including to our swimming pool each and every afternoon. They spread the good news of commercial enhancements, such as restaurants and shops, that many of us look forward to having next door. But they understated the failure to adequately address parking needs for future luxury condo residents, their visitors and those enjoying the new commercial establishments. They spread the good news of their willingness to help the city beautify North Bayshore Drive, its sidewalks and waterfront areas. But have they also understated what could be ulterior motives to incringe upon the waterfront that is to our immediate south at Biscayne 21? They spread the good news last fall to a few Biscayne 21 residents about their first MUSP designed for the entire city block. Most residents did not attend. Communication of their visit was a mere line item on a Board Meeting mail -room flier. There was never any direct communication from the developers straight to individual residents. But let me also add that they never formally presented the existing December 2004 MUSP to us at all. This would be the redesign that calls for only 3.8 fewer units on 26.5% less net area. They spread the good news about the "affordable housing" bonus that they would pay the city if you grant them the necessary FAR of 2.4, which represents a rather heavy 28.3% increase from the existing zoning of floor area ratio. But they understated that our former neighbors evicted from 340 and 348 Northeast 21 Street are now looking for alternative "affordable housing" somewhere else in the city. They spread the good news in Sunday's Herald implying that the project was a done -deal and announcing sales would commence in March. But they understated a key point made by Ms. Ileana Hernandez -Acosta, the Zoning Board Chair, on January 10 when she reluctantly recommended the zoning variance to you today. I am talking about the necessary alley closure that must be granted by the city and to my best understanding has not yet been granted. The property has an east -west zoned alleyway. Isn't an alleyway public property that would in fact be real estate owned by the City, just like a street? Isn't an alley generally Submitted Into the public record in connection with item 72 - ? on os Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk not included into the net area of private property if an owner happens to have two bordering properties divided by an alleyway? On the Biscayne Blvd side, the alley is bordered to the north by Bacardi's property — making it a shared alleyway. I learned there are three types of alleys - "a public right of way", "an easement" and "part of an existing private property". This couldn't possibly be considered part of an existing private property if it shared with their immediate neighbors. So wouldn't that have to make it either a public right of way or an easement? If this alley is in fact city property and does not belong to the developers, and if the city has not yet granted peiiiiission to the developers to eliminate this east -west alley within the zoning, how or why have the developers gone ahead within the past week and built a sidewalk that stretches from in front of Mary's house about 50 feet south and ACROSS what it still zoned as a city alleyway? I would at this time like to submit photographs for the record to the City Clerk to show the Commissioners what I am talking about. I took them yesterday at 4:00 pm. We are here today to bring this wide range of concerns to your attention and kindly ask you to consider either denying or deferring the First Hearing of the zoning variance application that was submitted on behalf of Royal Palm Communities. We very much agree with the Planning Department's own Pre -Application Design Review Committee that concluded in late December that this revised MUSP is "unacceptable" and "out of scale within the context of the neighborhood." Our neighborhood. Let me conclude by opening the floor up to my neighbors at Biscayne 21 to share a little more insight into the vast array of details that I have brought to your attention just now. We ask you humbly to proceed today with caution and restraint and to hear us out. That is why I requested a time -specific meeting so that more of could attend. We thank you, Commissioner Winton, our District 2 commissioner, and Commissioner Sanchez, Chair of this meeting, for allowing us this special consideration. This matter is of utmost importance to the residents at Biscayne 21 and we appreciate your taking our concerns to heart. Chris Tingue Biscayne 21 Resident 2-24-2005 Submitted Into the public record in connection with item Pt- g on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk