Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal Grove Bay Residences MUSP300 Grove Bay Residences Land Use Amendment, Rezoningand Maior Use Special Permit /MUSP) Applications Expert Testimony to the Miami City Commission This analysis is in regard to a project called 300 Grove Bay Residences seeking approvals by the City Commission for a future land use amendment from the Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities designation to the High Density Multifamily Residential designation; a rezoning from the Government and Institutional (G/l) district to the Multifamily High Density Residential (R-4) district; and for a Major Use Special Permit (MUSP). The project involves three proposed condominium towers totaling 300 units, the tallest of which would be approximately 411 feet. The subject site has a gross land area of 11.44 acres and a net land area of 6.72 acres, and is a portion of the current Mercy Hospital Tract. The site is located at the southeast corner of the Hospital property next to Biscayne Bay in the Coconut Grove neighborhood. I have reviewed the subject applications in relation to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, the Miami Zoning Code and the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Land Use Amendment Azrnlication The proposed rezoning and development require a land use amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan from the site's current designation of Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities to High Density Multifamily Residential. The City is attempting to process this amendment as a W t, small-scale amendment, which eliminates the need for State review and _ p considerably shortens the processing of amending the Plan. In order to proceed La_ with processing this amendment as a small-scale, the City claims that it is 0 I consistent with the requirement of s. 163.3187(1)(c)f, F.S. based on the idea that �.._ ct 611 it allows a maximum residential density the same or less than the maximum Z residential density allowed under the existing land use category. However, -- z residential uses are allowed within the Major Institutional, Public Facilities, 0 0 Transportation and Utilities land use designation only to the extent that they are W W el, ancillary to such public/institutional uses. Claiming that there will no additional 6) impacts from this proposed land use change thwarts the intent of the Chapter V Ni cl 163, F.S. provisions for small-scale amendments. The analysis underlying the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan assumes that the land within the Major m m Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities land use category will W be for public and ancillary uses, not private housing developments. The Cr) 0_ ! amendment thus represents a major change to the Plan that should be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as a large-scale amendment with a full review process. Furthermore, the Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) application utilizes a gross lot area of over 11 acres in order to calculate the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the project, but only 6.72 acres are included in the land use amendment 1 application. In order to derive intensity (floor area ratio) from land, it should have the appropriate future land use designation. It would appear that only 6.72 acres is included in order to avoid the requirements of s. 163.3187(1)(c)1, F.S. that a small-scale land use amendment must be 10 acres or less. This, too, is an inappropriate method to avoid the requirements of a large-scale future land use amendment requiring State review. Additionally, Capital Improvements Element Policy CI-1.2.1 requires that "The impact of proposed future land use map changes on LOS, public capital facilities needs, and the City's financial ability to provide required facilities will be assessed before such proposals are adopted." The City attempts to meet this requirement through the Concurrency Management Analysis. However, this analysis treats the land use amendment as if the same density/intensity were allowed under both the existing and the proposed future land use categories. Thus, for traffic, recreation/open space, potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste, staff projects no change in level of service impacts. However, when preparing the analysis for the comprehensive plan, projecting future traffic, etc., the Plan did not assume that this 6.72 acres would be developed for residential uses, but rather that it would be used for govemmentliinstitutional uses. It certainly does not assume that the subject parcel or entire Mercy property, much Tess all land in the entire City under the Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities designation, would be developed at 150 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the data and analysis in support of the amendment is inadequate in terms of evaluating the impacts on public facility LOS. The proposed land use amendment is inconsistent with, and does not facilitate, several policies in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including: "Policy LU-1.1.3: The City's zoning ordinance provides for protection of all areas [JJ 11,0 - of the city from: (1) the encroachment of incompatible land uses; (2) the adverse = O r- impacts of future land uses in adjacent areas that disrupt or degrade public 1-- o health and safety, or natural or man-made amenities; and (3) transportation O ' policies that divide or fragment established neighborhoods." ca X Analysis: The proposed High Density Multifamily Residential, as well as o z the proposed R-4 zoning, is incompatible with the surrounding area, as it C] V o would be the only such designated property in all of Coconut Grove, and ILL W would be located on the Mercy Hospital property that currently abuts R-1 `i. zoning almost entirely. The nearest area designated for High Density Multifamily Residential on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is M J approximately one mile from the site. In addition, the height is 37 stories COm (411 feet) which is out -of -context with the established neighborhood height - 7. ; L:1_' pattern of 30 feet in R-1 and approximately 8-15 stories in R-3. "Policy LU-1.1.10: The City's land development regulations will encourage high - density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to 2 Metrorail and Metromover stations, consistent with the Station Area Design and Development Plan for each station." Analysis: This policy specifically targets areas in the City that are in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations to receive future high density residential development. The subject site is not appropriate for such development, as there are no High Density Multifamily Residential areas nearby, or in all of Coconut Grove, and the site is approximately 3/ mile from the nearest Metrorail station. This project does not facilitate this policy as required by State law. "Policy LU-1.6.9: The City's land development regulations will establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of future development." _ fil Cro L.L C 00 6--- O Z "Policy HO-1.1.9: The City's land development regulations will encourage high- ,...., LV 0 density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to W Metrorail and Metromover stations, consistent with the Station Area Design and cr Development Plan for each station." V nil Analysis: This policy specifically targets areas in the City that are in dose J 6" proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations to receive future high ri m M density residential development. The subject site is not appropriate for D W such development, as there are no High Density Multifamily Residential n a- ~' areas nearby, or in all of Coconut Grove, and the site is approximately % mile from the nearest Metrorail station. This project does not facilitate this policy as required by State law. Analysis: This policy is intended to ensure that adverse impacts of future development are mitigated. However, there is no potential for mitigation of the adverse impacts of development under the High Density Multifamily Residential designation in the requested location, because it is inconsistent, incompatible and out of scale with the established land use pattern and character of Coconut Grove and, more specifically, the area immediately surrounding the subject site. Rezonino Requirement Zoning Code Section 2210 stipulates that the zoning board report and recommendation on a rezoning should "show that the zoning board has studied and considered, where applicable, whether or not" the statements below are true. At least 7 of the 16 factors are not met by this application, as demonstrated below: "(b) The proposed change is in harmony with the established land use pattem;" 3 Analysis: The proposed rezoning is dearly not in harmony with the existing land use pattern. The proposed R-4 zoning district would be the only such zoning within the Coconut Grove neighborhood, and the only residential district which may include structures of unlimited height. The proposal is incompatible with the nearby single-family and height -limited multi -family structures in the immediate vicinity and would create a precedent -inducing encroachment of a high density residential zoning district into a Government and Institutional (Gil) zoned area that currently has clear and consistent boundaries with its neighboring residential zoning districts. "(c) The proposed change is related to adjacent and nearby districts;" Analysis: The proposed R-4 zoning district would have no relationship with neighboring and nearby districts. While the R-1 and R-3 residential districts nearby are part of a consistent neighborhood fabric that includes streets and public spaces integrated with major institutional uses, the proposed development that would be authorized by this rezoning would not be part of the street grid and would be out of scale and character with the historic and unique Coconut Grove neighborhood. Similarly, the development would be placed on an irregularly -shaped piece of land carved from property currently under G/I zoning, and would have no relationship in form, function or design with the existing community -serving medical uses. "(e) The proposed change maintains the same or similar population density pattern and thereby does not increase or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, streets, etc.;" Analysis: The proposed R-4 zoning designation would allow residential densities and scale far greater than those allowed for residential properties in the area, and introduces a high density residential zoning classification onto a property that currently could only be developed with residential uses to the extent that they are ancillary to the primary govemment or institutional use. In fact, under the terms of the Zoning Code under the Government and Institutional (G/I) zoning district, as amended in 2004 under the terms of the Grovesnor Ordinance, residential uses ancillary to the primary institutional uses on the Mercy Hospital property could only be developed in accordance with the limitations of the least intense abutting zoning district, which is R-3 Multifamily Medium Density Residential. Thus, the subject rezoning would substantially alter population density patterns. This has the potential to overtax public facilities, as evidenced in part by the May 5, 2006 letter from the Miami - Dade County Public Schools regarding the proposed development, Coconut Grove Elementary and Coral Gables Senior High schools will be 4 impacted, pushing their Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) utilization to 120% and 131% of capacity, respectively. "(f) Existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change;" Analysis: The proposed zoning district change would create an irregularly shaped cut-out of the Gil district that would create illogical district boundaries. This proposed designation would have no relationship with the remainder of the G/I property, nor to the abutting residential areas of the Coconut Grove neighborhood. W OC : =O ' 1--. LL- C Analysis: The proposed zoning district boundary change would negatively O ca is influence living conditions in the neighborhood. It would authorize an excessive building height that is undesirable to the community, and tremendously out -of -scale with any structure in the vicinity. It would co Z compromise the historic and successful low-rise nature of the Coconut i] C..) O Grove neighborhood and eliminate some views of Biscayne Bay. In W W A addition, the Planning Department agreed in a 2006 memo that the "change of zoning of this property from G/I to R-4, combined additional el C.)FAR gained from bay frontage and adjacent roads, results in a project Mdensity that is inappropriate for the existing conditions of this area ... this CO M project is out of scale with the area." W a. F.- "(m) The proposed change will contribute to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accord with existing regulations;" "(h) The proposed change positively influences living conditions in the neighborhood;" Analysis: The proposed rezoning will not contribute to the improvement or development of adjacent property under existing regulations. On the contrary, the single-family homes near the subject site are likely to become less desirable than those located further from the site due to the out -of -scale development and LOS impacts that would be authorized by the rezoning. This in turn will lead to pressure to attain the same or similar zoning of those properties nearby, a process that could continue and thus endanger more and more of Coconut Grove's historic low -density character and endanger the single-family integrity of the neighborhood. "(o) There are substantial reasons why the use of the property is unfairly limited under existing zoning;" Analysis: The property is not unfairly limited under existing zoning, under which it could be developed with a large number of various govemment and institutional uses. It could also be developed with residential uses 5 ancillary to the existing medical uses under the regulations affecting the R- 3 district. Major tAle Special Permit (MUSP) Application Section 1702.2.3 of the Zoning Code requires that a developmental impact study be submitted as part of the Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) application demonstrating "whether the impact of the proposed development is favorable, adverse, or neutral on the economy, public services, environment, and housing supply of the City." However, the housing supply portion of this developmental impact study (page 6 of Article II: Project Description of the MUSP application) is wholly inadequate, including only a broad statement regarding the overall housing market in South Florida. It includes no information specific to the City of Miami, and no analysis of the impact of the proposed project, which is the point of the required developmental impact study. Additionally, Section 1703.2 includes a set of standards used to determine whether the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the property's zoning classification. Included in these standards are the following: "(3) Whether the development will favorably affect the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment based on a housing impact analysis to be provided by the applicant;" Analysis: This standard has not been addressed, as the MUSP application contains no housing impact analysis by the applicant to address the question of housing in proximity to employment opportunities. As discussed above, the application contains a very general statement about the housing market in South Florida. Specifically, it states in its entirety: "Over the last several years prices of urban housing have increased dramatically; despite the recent slow down in the economy. Subsequently, a substantial amount of people within metropolitan areas has begun to return to the city to live. This has created a shortage of housing along with an upward surge of housing prices. This pattern remains the same in South Florida where there continues to be an increased demand for housing, particularly in Miami -Dade County." This statement contains no analysis whatsoever, certainly not any type of analysis substantial enough to determine the proposed project's impact on the need for people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment. In spite of a question on page 6 of Article II: Project Description of the MUSP application that states that the economic impact data should demonstrate that the proposed development is favorable to housing supply, this issue is not mentioned in the economic 6 data submitted. Therefore, the MUSP application does not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Code. "(5) Whether the development will have a favorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the City based on an environmental impact analysis to be provided by the applicant;" Analysis: The MUSP application contains no assessment of the project's impact on the environment and natural resources, despite the requirements of Section 1703.2(5) of the Zoning Code cited above. While a question on page 6 of Article II: Project Description of the MUSP application states that the economic impact data should demonstrate that the proposed development is favorable to the environment, this issue is not mentioned in the economic data submitted. Therefore, the MUSP application does not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Code. Grovesnor Ordinance The proposed rezoning and development project subverts the intent of the "Grovesnor Ordinance." The Ordinance was passed by the City Commission in 2004 to amend the section of the Code governing the Government and Institutional (Gil) zoning district. The Ordinance states that land within the G/I category may be used for uses ancillary to government/institutional uses subject to the limitations applicable to the least intense abutting zoning district. This ordinance recognized that sometimes govemment/institutionat uses require ancillary uses on the same property, but also recognized that such uses should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The present application runs counter to this intent, proposing to rezone G/t property to a use more intense than any abutting property. In fact, the Grovesnor Ordinance specifically changed the Code to exclude both R-4 and non -ancillary Office uses on GA property. The Ordinance says that if any GA zoned property ceases to be used for government/institutional uses, then it should be used in accordance with the least intense abutting district. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is prohibited by the Grovesnor Ordinance. Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD) The character of the Coconut Grove neighborhood and the need to protect it has been recognized in the Zoning Code (Section 803) in the creation of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). The intent cited in 803 of the Code includes protecting the historic, heavily landscaped character, green space and architectural variety. This designation indudes additional development and redevelopment standards to ensure the continued unique character and identity of Coconut Grove. In contrast, the land use, rezoning and MUSP applications that would authorize development of high density condominium towers on the Mercy Hospital property would jeopardize the 7 neighborhood and introduce incompatible development that the NCD-3 is intended to prevent. Soot Zonino The rezoning of the subject property from Gil to R-4 would constitute spot zoning. A common definition of spot zoning, from the Planner's Dictionary published by the American Planning Association (APA) is as follows: [A] change in district boundaries, variances, and other amendments to the zoning code and use and area maps that violate sound principles of zoning and are characterized by the following: (a) Individuals seek to have property rezoned for their private use. (b) Usually the amount of land involved is small and limited to one or two ownerships. (c) The proposed rezoning would give privileges not generally extended to property similarly located in the area. (d) Applications usually show little or no evidence of, or interest in, consideration of the general welfare of the public, the effect on surrounding property (including adequate buffers), whether all uses permitted in the classification sought are appropriate in the locations proposed, or conformity to the comprehensive plan or to comprehensive planning principles (including alterations to the population density patterns and increase of load on utilities, schools, and traffic.)" The subject parcel is a small parcel where development would be authorized vastly different than that available to other properties in the area which have markedly different zoning districts, even though these other properties are similarly situated. It would also serve a private interest of enhancing development potential rather than being undertaken to promote the general interest or welfare of the City and the surrounding area. The application also shows little or no evidence of, or interest in, the effect on surrounding property or whether the high density uses permitted in the district are appropriate in this location. As pointed out earlier, the "ripple effect" of this spot could create precedent for more R-4 in this area. Therefore, the application represents a form of spot zoning and should not be allowed. Summary As demonstrated above, the subject future land use, rezoning and MUSP applications should not be approved by the City Commission. The land use amendment is being improperly processed as a small-scale amendment when in fact it should be processed as a large-scale amendment with full State review. Additionally, the potential impacts on levels of service (LOS) have not been properly assessed as required by State law and the City's own Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The applications are also inconsistent with and do not further several Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan policies. In terms of the rezoning, at least 7 of the 16 factors to be considered for a rezoning have not been met by this request, and it is contrary to the Grovesnor Ordinance passed by the City Commission in 2004. Additionally, the MUSP application is insufficient because it does not contain data and analysis that are required by the Zoning Code, and thus should not be approved. The request would also thwart 8 the intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3) zoning designation, which is meant to preserve the unique single-family character and identity of the Coconut Grove neighborhood. Finally, the request would constitute illegal spot zoning of a small property surrounded by dissimilar uses. For all of these reasons, the future land use, rezoning and MUSP applications should not be approved. Signed: e ry Iler, AICP March 27, 2007 SUSM!TTED INTO THE PUBL/C RECORD FOR 1TEM0v 9