Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal memo update questionsMemorandum g'%- b63Jr1 To: From: Pedro G. Hernandez, P.E. City Manager Commissioner Marc Sarnoff District 2 Date: February 19th, 2007 RE: Miami 21 Updated Questions Thank you for responding to my December 20th, 2006 memo with your response dated January 24th, 2007. As discussed, our office is organizing a meeting of affected stakeholders and architects throughout the East Quadrant which encompasses District 2 as well as District 5. In order to maximize productivity, please have DPZ more completely address the following questions and their responses in the Jan 24th, 2007 memo. We have also included several new questions. Attached is the January 24th, 2007 memo for reference. 1. Miami21 makes the assumption that manufacturing plants and factories want to relocate to Wynwood, Little Haiti, Lemon City and Little River, this apparently contradicts what most area residents appear to want. Please have DPZ provide background information that reflects their findings. If that is the case, what are we doing to get that process moving now? January 24th 2007 response appears to be a non -answer. First, it does not address the fact that the area is surrounded on four (4) sides by residential residents who do not want to see "industrial" directly adjacent. As to the claim that there are "calls" to the Dept of Economic Development expressing interest please provide names and addresses. How many "calls" came in? Did any calls result in vacancies being filled? Was one employee hired in Wynwood, Little Haiti, Lemon City and Little River due to any effort from the Dept of Economic Development? Stakeholders in these areas have no evidence of any of these calls or claims. Please provide details. Actual stakeholder and property ownerr experience contradicts answer received from DPZ on Jan 246: 2. DPZ referred to the Economic Feasibility Study and Analysis performed by Economic Research Associates. A draft of the study dated June, 2006 was made available to the public. Since then, there have been many comments and suggestions made to improve that report. Has any action been taken to review those suggestions and comments? If not, can we organize a working meeting of staff and affected citizens and owners to address them? Will a final report be prepared and, if so, when will it be available? ,c✓hZv.Y'1Xt. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM Dd. a ON a.aa a2. f-,t �.•j•O vip r Again, this appears to be a non -answer. The ERA Draft was dated June 2006 and we understand there were numerous deficiencies. Has ERA responded? If so, when? If not, why not? If there are meetings pending when are they scheduled? Who will be attending? Can stakeholders attend? Please provide the new factual data and empirical evidence ERA will use to fix its Draft. 3. The plan reduces the permitted heights allowed on large sections of property but proposes a system under which developers will be able to buy additional height to reach similar heights that are now permitted, after application, and allowed at no cost other than application fees and costs. What will be the overall impact on the City of this approach? Has an analysis been done of the site acquisition costs and construction costs currently facing builders and developers? How does this information bear on the decision to charge developers to allow extra height? Are we not really taking something away, for stated reasons that are beneficial to the City and its citizens, but then essentially saying you can buy your way out of those reasons? The answer provided in the January 24t° memo appears t0 contradict other DPZ answers and comments. Answer states additional height available but we thought additional height was not available? What about the areas now zoned Industrial with 120' height limits? Is not DPZ replacing the 120' with 5 to 7 stories? Who will compensate the property owners for the loss in market value? How does this match up? 4. As we are all aware of the very dramatic shortfall in affordable housing in Miami and Miami -Dade County, it is of great concern to me what impacts Maimi21 will have on the efforts to generate such housing. Should we add a component to the development fee area for some of those proceeds to go to that effort? Where does Miami21 encourage "height and density" to allow the economies of scale to allow affordable housing? If the City wants to increase work force and/or affordable housing they should make height available as a right. If the City charges for height that will make the units • more expensive not less expensive. Suggesting that a developer of a T 5 project pay the City to "buy" another 1-2 stories and then have the City give the money to another developer to build work force/affordable housing is not realistic or efficient. 5. Can staff please explain the reasoning behind reducing the height limits for the CBD area? The plan is proposing T- 6 - 36 0, what are the current height restrictions? The DPZ response is not clear. Is the current height limit 48 stories or is the current height limit unlimited? 2 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMt»k . ON . .6. Can staff please explain the reasoning behind zoning the area north of 395 and west of Biscayne T- 6 - 36 instead of T- 6 -24? The DPZ response is not clear. Is not much of this area zoned Cl with a 120' height limit? With no SD-6 overlay? The area south of NE 17`s Street? 7. Miami21 is currently proposing a reduction in the height limits for areas currently zoned Industrial. If someone, currently in an Industrial area, gets their height limits reduced from 120' are they entitled to be compensated for the loss in property value with TDR's? As it is now February 19th, 2007 can we receive a complete answer? If TDR's are not established then how will the City compensate property owners who have significant loss on property values due to mandated height reductions? 8. T5 does not seem to allow art and low tech industrial uses at this time, is this the intention or will this be addressed in the future? Much of Wynwood, Lemon City and Little River are used by Design District retailers and businesses. Will they be allowed in T 5? 9. Is it possible for the plan to expand the "uses" so neighborhoods can adjust possible conforming "uses" to their unique situations? The plan reduced. 360 uses to 45 uses. Neighborhoods have varying degrees of morals and characteristics; can the "uses" be further expanded so that neighborhoods can control their "conforming" uses? The Jan 24th, 2007 answer is not satisfactory. Can the issue of unwanted "rag shops", porn shops, tattoo parlors and strip clubs and other unwanted "businesses" be dealt with by tighter use definitions rather than passing the buck to the over extended Code Enforcement Dept? 10. DPZ has proposed changing the area east of Biscayne Blvd in Edgewater. We believe it is now zoned mostly R-4. DPZ appears to be proposing a change from residential to commercial, Restricted to Limited. We notice that most of the Edgewater streets are very narrow, and many dead-end. Commercial activity — with its corresponding greatly increased double-parking (deliveries, "running in for a minute", waiting for pick-ups, etc.) will block these streets and could possibly cause long backups, to and from Biscayne Blvd, Even with the high -density residential use, getting onto Biscayne is difficult. DPZ has agreed the existing side streets are inadequate for this change and apparently stated in June, 2006, that additional north south streets would need to be added. DPZ introduced the idea of "Proposed Streets". We are told DPZ acknowledged three months later that it was only an unenforceable idea. Is it true DPZ followed this by introducing the concept of a second idea, six months ago, to require developers to donate land for the new north south streets? This does not sound like a realistic solution. 3 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMD ON �I»I0-) . Does DPZ assume property owners will donate land? DPZ apparently never announced the details of this proposal, seems to have dropped this proposal, and hasn't addressed the initial acknowledgement both that the streets are inadequate and that "mid -block connections will be provided"? Commonsense would dictate that these narrow and dead-end streets east of Biscayne Blvd will be very crowded. Given the new height and density at the equivalency to R-4 of T6-R. And, the proposed Miami 21 appears to double the densities from its first draft's already liberal interpretation of equivalencies (what R-4 allows now), from T6-12 (24) to T6-24 (48). Over time, DPZ has appeared to change its opinion from saying adding commercial "would decrease traffic", to only that it "might possibly". DPZ seems to agree that the overall middle-, and upper -middle-, class professionals who can afford to live on those streets do not have the types of jobs they can likely quit just because there might be another type of job within walking distance. While mixed use is a useful concept, of course it doesn't make sense in all inner city locations, and while studies and data are useful, citing ones which do not address these local conditions, appears unproductive. It appears the likely downside far exceeds any possible upside, DPZ's up zoning from "R" to "L", will result in virtually guaranteeing regularly blocked east/west side streets and entry onto Biscayne is already difficult. So, why is DPZ proposing to up zone the R-4 streets — rightly initially proposed as T6R — without a very strong, overriding finding of necessity? (In fact, simultaneous to upzoning these streets to L, I understand Planning downzoned the C-1 streets west of Biscayne, from 0 to L, only recently, many drafts later, reinstating them to O). Also, I understand there was a petition submitted against this up zoning. Is there data available to support the proposed changes? May I please receive all supporting documentation? 11. What sites have been presently identified as possible new park sites? Has the City identified possible park sites that are not in the Goody Clancy Parks Master Plan draft? SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMiON a a, , 12. The City of Miami has a stakeholder, Goldman Properties, who owns numerous properties in the Wynwood area. Goldman Properties has shared goals with many other property owners and stakeholders in Wynwood. We are told the goals of Goldman Properties are shared by property owners controlling 100-120 sites. These goals include but are not limited to mixed use projects, mixed income projects, work force housing, pedestrian friendly streets, adequate and planned parking, a 24/7 community, "eyes on the street", interesting design and interesting architect -are. This property owner commissioned its own Master Plan from a world renowned, Miami based, architectural firm several years ago. Has the City of Miami and DPZ reviewed the results of that Master Plan? Can the best elements of that Master Plan be incorporated into Miami 21? Please note that this follow up is very important to the citizens of District 2 and to all of the citizens of our city because it impacts not just the current zone being addressed by Miami21 but it will lay the framework for the rest of the City as well. Commissioner Marc D. Sarnoff District 2 City of Miami S arnoffmiami2 l memo 19feb07 5 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM ay.a ON >\1D' .