Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal questions & answersLittle River/Lemon City/Little Haiti Stakeholders' 52 Questions and 30 Comments Submitted to miami2l.org Compiled and edited by Silvia Wong Concern 2007 has arrived. "Miami 21" is still in the planning stages. However, we are all being told it will be presented for a vote to the Planning Advisory Board and to the City Commissioners, in the very near future, by the ,.,._ �3 P f consultants in charge of the project. The first quadrant will set the precedent for the entire City. It is, simply put, clearly time to work aggressively towards being more accurate and more complete than the latest draft we are all able to see on the website. In 2005 and 2006, Little River/Lemon City/Little Haiti stakeholders submitted at least fifty-two (52) questions and at least thirty (30) comments to miami21.org. It is important to note that, in the view of many, most of the 52 questions and all of the 30 comments submitted to the website have essentially gotten no meaningful responses, vague responses, and even some plainly rude responses. We want to help the City of Miami Commissioners, officials, staff and consultants in achieving our mutual goal of holistic growth and economic development in this area. At the same time, we all want to see the upcoming $40 Mil Little Haiti Park flourish, with safety paramount. If the areas around both the Recreational and the Cultural Components of the Little Haiti Park are not safe, then the taxpayers' $40 Mil investment is at risk and the Park will be unsuccessful. Imagine the new $20 Mil soccer field taken over by a shanty -town? Stakeholders are working hard to pay taxes, meet payrolls, keep the existing jobs, and hopefully create new jobs, in this area. This is getting more and more difficult, with the astronomical increases in property taxes, insurance premiums, labor costs/turnover, etc. Many stakeholders have taken the time from our busy lives to attend meetings, write E-mails and letters, and phone City officials and consultants, etc. We respectfully request that you, the ddcision-makers, review our concerns at this crucial time in the Miami 21 process. We encourage you to read the 52 .questions and 30 comments. At the very least, please review the following recurring themes, with their corresponding numbered questions (Q 0 # # #) and comments (C 0 # # #.) 2 Listed below is a sampling of the miami2l .org submissions from our area, with the main points in bold italics. Q 0250: "My companies have 400 employees in South Florida. We would consider placing employees in Lemon City and Little River but we would need less crime and mixed use zoning . Perhaps T5?" — Kent Janzon, stakeholder on NE 59 Street and NE 4thAvenue. C 0093: "...as someone who has tried for more than a decade to bring investment and jobs to the area — am extremely concerned that any planning be based on some anticipated future "heavy industrial use." Miami is now a very industry light city and it gets more and more light every day. Industry is not coming here because of numerous reasons but most of all it is the availability of cheap resources, labor and physical plants overseas. Trying to compete for these jobs will doom us to empty buildings and unemployment lines." — Robert Mayer, property owner (Magic City Trailer Park) of almost 8 acres on NE 60th Street between NE 2nd and NE 4th Avenues. C 0094: "...we are surrounded on four sides by residential. We strive to serve the residents by providing low tech clean jobs, food, services ... which will hopefully keep the neighboring residents in our neighborhood instead of stuck in massive traffic jams ... Those of us who live and work in the neighborhood want mixed use. We want more and better housing so we do not have to commute." Also see: C 0091, C 0073, C 0055, C 0037, C 0018. C 0180: "...we respectfully request some mixed use T5 zoning as a means to revitalize this area. We have too many vacant lots that will stay vacant without TS zoning. This would create an all-around win -win situation: more and better jobs, additional needed housing, reduction in commuting time for the area's workers, safer and cleaner streets, more life and more energy, better sense of community, more and safer usage of the Little Haiti Park, more confidence in this area, etc." — Silvia Wong, property and business owner, with husband, Manny Wong, on NE 4th Avenue and NE 67th Street. 2 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 1TEM!_ON p1o1 3 C 0053: "It is utterly detrimental to the City not to add mixed use and residential components to the area west of the tracks to I-95 ... It is ridiculous to pretend that industrial properties are the "wave of the future." ... This area is prime for work force housing, affordable housing and live - work. spaces." — Larry Van Cel, property owner on NW 72nd Street and NW 1st Avenue. Q 0224: "I see more and more retail and offices and low tech higher paying jobs ... west of the FEC Corridor ... D2 will perpetuate poverty and decrease the movement of jobs to this area." — Dr. Tim Hogle, Dentist who owns a dental spa on NE 59th Street; relocated from Lincoln Road in South Beach. Q 0250: "My companies have 400 employees in South Florida. We would consider placing employees in Lemon City and Little River but we would need less crime and mixed use zoning ... Perhaps T5?" — Kent Janzon, stakeholder on NE 59th Street and NE 4th Avenue. Q 0159: "Our employees would like new residential so they can walk or bike to work ... Can we get mixed use?" C 0126: "I am a casting director who leases a beautiful building on the corner of NE 59th Terrace and NE 4th Avenue. My husband and I have a small photo studio. Please allow us to work and live in our great space. T5?" — Monica Mola, business owner (casting agency/photo studio.) Also see: Q 0280, Q 0247. C 0157: "Vacant lot property investor on NE 4th Avenue finds D1 useless. Vacant lots provide no jobs and they make neighborhoods look depressed. Please reconsider and give me T5 or T6. Then we have some potential ... Di on NE 60`h Street will perpetuate poverty." — Xavier Lesmarie, vacant lot owner, NE 4th Avenue and NE 60th Street. Also see: C 0005. 3 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM Dki.a ON l>1oi. 4 C 0037: "We would like to suggest that ... the area along NE 4th Avenue north of 59th Street ... could be changed ... to a T5 or T6 ... and get live/work development. Encouraging growth on the "wrong side of the tracks" in District 5 on NE 4`h Avenue would help to create new jobs, better quality jobs and new residents in an area that has been neglected." Also see: Q 0249. Q 0262: " D 1 is a severe reduction to me ... there are several large interesting residential projects proposed on NE 4m Avenue. Why can't you give us T6 or maybe T5?" — Debbie Ohanian, business and property owner, NE 4th Avenue between NE 55th and 56th Streets. Q 0276: "...one half of my property is zoned T-5 and the other half D-1. If 2 sides of my property is surrounded by proposed T-5 zoning, and 1 side a public street, why can't my property be left at T-5?" Also see: Q 0389, Q 0375, Q 0324, Q 0294. C 0086: "We advocate new live/work buildings on the existing vacant lots, as well as adaptive reuses of neglected existing buildings ... developing a wonderful mix of jobs with a residential component, creating 24/7 communities." Also see: C 0096, C 0040. Q 0275: "...mixed use zoning will be very beneficial to Lemon City, Little River and Little Haiti. We need new housing, we need new vitality and we need "eyes on the street."-- Peter Ehrlich, property owner, NE 59th Street, NE 59th Terrace, and NE 60th Street. Also see: Q 0158, Q 0149. C 0097: "When the park was originally proposed, the Commission promised upgraded residences surrounding both park components. DPZ realizes that our neighborhood's crime wave will only increase without upgraded residences and without mixed use zoning." — Shaya Weberman, business owner, NE 59th Street, across the street ..1 . • i of the roposed Little Haiti Park. : ITT D INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 4 ITEMi_ON\ia.o, 5 C 0120: "My family and our companies have the ability to bring in even more employees. But we need mixed use zoning and/or TS. We need reduced crime and we need our future neighbor, the Little Haiti Park Cultural Component, to have residential supervision. Please give us mixed use zoning on NE 59th Street." — Richard Sampedro, property and business owner (tile and design business) on NE 59th Street at NE 3rd Avenue. Also see: Q 0277. C 0158: "My location is surrounded by the proposed Little Haiti Park Cultural Component. Sometimes there are crack addicts and criminals hanging around ... we need "eyes on the street." Perhaps a 24/7 residential building would help? Please give us mixed use zoning. T5, I suppose." — Steve Harivel, business owner (prop shop) on NE 59th Terrace and NE 3rd Avenue. Also see: Q 0255. Q 0270: "You should have more people living around here ... How will you keep the park clean and safe ... if there is not a change?" — Ljudmila Schoenhuber, potential business owner on NE 59th Terrace. Also see: Q 0271. Q 0263: " Our property borders the $15 Mil proposed Little Haiti Park Cultural Component. Can our zoning be changed to permit residential here on NE 50 Street? I know that would also help make the area safer." — Alejandro Ramirez, property and business owner, comer of NE 59th Street and NE 3rd Avenue. (Note: As of this writing on January 12, 2007, the Park's Cultural Component is now forecasted to cost $20 Mil.) Q 0231: "...having only industrial zoning in Little River ... does not make sense ... the respected Miami 21 consultants: Duany & Plater-Zyberk, and Goody Clancy, both ... recommend residential zoning around the two (2) park components. ERA (Economic Research Associates) also recommends mixed use zoning surrounding the two park components. But ERA neglects to recommend mixed use zoning on NE 4th Avenue where several projects are already in permitting." Also see: Q 0209. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMti.-ON ?)4yp. 6 Q 0379: "Why is NE 4th Avenue north of NE 541h Street proposed to get Dl ? D1 zoning is useless. Residential housing and interesting new projects are proposed for this avenue now." Also, please note that ERA, the economic consultants for Miami 21, admitted they had made a mistake when they looked at this area along NE 4th Avenue south of 62nd Street. They thought the properties abutted the railroad tracks. They do not, as NE 4th Avenue runs between those properties and the western side of the tracks. As such, a major reason for the D1 designation of those properties is flawed. Also see: Q 0375, Q 0324, Q 0322, Q 0281. Q 0267: "NE 59`"` Street is an attractive crosstown street. We would love to see some new interesting retail on NE 59th Street with perhaps new interesting residences upstairs. Can we get T5? With 120' height limits maintained?" — Steve Blatt, property and business owner (Dixie Transport: a building on NE 55th Street and NE 4th Avenue, and a space on NE 59 th Street.) C 0098: "We currently have C2 zoning with a 120' height limit. This is to us very satisfactory. We do not understand your proposal to give us D1 zoning with its reduced height limits. We foresee retail and new interesting companies relocating to our area and we very much want to see new residential growth ... Why does DPZ and the City want to give us such unattractive new zoning? We need "eyes on the street." — David Weberman, business owner (Weberman Traditional Foods commissary) on NE 59th Street. Also see: Q 0365, Q 0022. Q 0371: "1.) Maintain the current 120' height limitation in D-1 and D-2 industrial districts. 2.) Add the "workJlive" occupancy to both industrial D-districts." Also see: Q 0366, Q 0349, Q 0339. Q 0378: "If you take away height and density you cannot create affordable housing or affordable commercial space. Dist 5 needs new housing and it needs new °"' SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR 6 ITEM. -ON, da10-7 . 7 Q 0351: "... keeping our 120' height limits makes economic sense ... developers need sufficient height and density to build both affordable housing and mixed income projects ... Having 45' height limits will sadly perpetuate poverty." Also see: C 0016, Q 0383. C 0241: "DPZ would make the City's goal of creating affordable or low income or workforce housing very difficult because generally DPZ is planning to reduce "height and density" ... Obviously, economies of scale depend on "height and density." Without "economies of scale" even market rate housing will be expensive." C 0232: "The Miami 21 planners have yet to produce many intensity of use descriptions for ... T-5, D-1, and D-2. Additionally, Miami 21 has not addressed the issue of nonconformity ... There is still no definition of a Live/Work or Work/Live occupancy ... ensuing encounters, devaluation and hardships ... to every owner, stakeholder, tenant, business and job seeker."— Bennet Pumo, property owner (Pumo Properties throughout the City.) Also see: C 0230, C 0160, Q 0383, Q 0366, Q 0327, Q0326. Q 0348: "Rag shops" AKA used clothing sorters and exporters are a blight on Little Haiti, Lemon City and Little River. Can DPZ make them a non- conforming use in TS, D1 and D2?" Also see: C 0234, Q 0388, Q 0365. Q 0261: "When will ERA (Economic Research Associates) fix the mistakes in their "Draft"? We would hate to see any planning decisions made based on faulty information." - Ernesto Genao, business owner on NE 59th Street. Also see: C 0172, C 0161, C 0128, Q 0387, Q 0375, Q 0363, Q 0362, Q 0324, Q 0284. SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEMq.ON . 7 8 In summary, the many dozens of Little River/Lemon City/Little Haiti stakeholders agree with these thoughts: C 0230: "... the maximum enhancements to residential life, family safety, business vitality and job promotion of each area, district or infrastructure improvement should be this City's goals. C 0243: "We are still waiting for accurate real answers to our real questions ..." This last thought aptly applies to all our concerns set forth in this report. Our stakeholders control $100's of Millions in property and businesses, provide hundreds of jobs, and we house many dozens of clean low tech businesses. Yet, almost uniformly, we feel like the process is only providing lip service to the public input. It seems like a lumbering giant heading downhill and gathering speed towards an inevitable conclusion — passage with great dissatisfaction and resentment, and needing many changes immediately. Miami 21 is designed, per the website and DPZ materials, to control and change the future of Miami, a major and important urban city and global meeting center, for the next fifty to a hundred years. It is critically important that we get it right the first time, and not allow unanswered questions or incorrect information to be part of the decision -making process. That will only engender resentment and numerous expensive and drawn out battles which are detrimental to all concerned. Please contact us anytime. Thank you. Little River Stakeholders Lemon City Taxpayers FEC Corridor Stakeholders January 16th, 2007 SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR ITEM:_piLON > » „. 8