HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal letter Hadley WilliamsMarch 27, 2007
City Commissioners
City of Miami,
Miami, FL
Dear Commissioners:
Hadley C. Williams
2441 Trapp Ave.
Miami, FL 33133
Tel: 305-285-071 1
SUBMJTIED INTO THE
'4@ad'fr`°`� `°'pUBLI, RECORD FOR
1TEM,jN 9.a7-09 .
Re: File Number 06-010601u
As a resident of the North Grove, I strenuously object to the requested amendment to the Land
Use Map to change the designation of subject property to "High -Density Multifamily
Residential", which has unlimited height.
I must bring to your attention a couple of things:
A. A letter from County Manager George M. Burgess and County Attorney Murray A.
Greenberg to Honorable Chairman Bruno A. Barreiro and Members Board of the County
Commission dated March 20.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The County concurs with the City of Miami Planning staff recommendation that "the project is
out of scale with the area, and the rezoning of the property should be consistent with the
adjacent neighborhood, which is R-3 zoning." The proposed rezoning of this property allows
unlimited height. The majority of the development around the area are single family and low-
rise development (including Vizcaya).
B. The Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan (the "MCNP") states as follows:
"LU-1 Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the qulaity of life in the
city's residential neighborhoods:"
"LU-1.1.3 The City's zoning ordinance provides for protection of all areas of the city
from: (1) the encroachment of incompatible land uses;"
This project is in violation of the MCNP, as cited above and in other sections relating to
"context".
C. Zoning Ordinances, as you are well aware, must conform to the MCNP. The current Land
Use Map shows subject property as G/I. The Zoning Ordinance explicitly states that any
change from G/I will be to the lowest density of abutting properties. This Ordinance was
approved in conformity with the MCNP requirements quoted above and is a PLANNING
REQUIREMENT.
The requested change from G/I to R4 for the proposed project would result in a development
totally out of context with the surrounding neighborhoods. It would also establish a new
context for further R4 development on the rest of the Mercy properties and other G/I zoned
parcels in the immediate vicinity, against the wishes of the majority of the neighbors.
I strongly request that you deny this requested change.
Sincerely,
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC REGARD FOR
ITEMM ON 3-)/7o1 .
March 27, 2007
City Commissioners
City of Miami,
Miami, FL
Dear Commissioners:
Hadley C. Williams
2441 Trapp Ave.
Miami, FL 33133
Tel: 305-285-071 1
kocrieetout@miadynia9, INTO THE
PUBLFC RECORD FOR
ITEM , S/2 -3 ON 3-,2?-02
Re: File Number 06-01060zc
I am a resident of the North Grove and as such, I am familiar with the North Grove
neighborhood including Mercy Hospital and I am also familiar with Sec. 803. NCD-3 Coconut
Grove Neighborhood Conservation District and its boundaries — which include the Mercy
Hospital property.
In Section 2 of the proposed Ordinance, there is the statement which you would be adopting if
you vote for approval: "... without affecting the "NCD-3" Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District, as applicable, for the property located at approximately 3663 South
Miami Avenue ... "
You cannot make that finding. NCD-3 explicitly EXCLUDES R-4 Multifamily High Density
Residential Districts". This exclusion is in conformity with Sec 803.1 Intent, which includes
the following statement: "The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation
District ... is to establish a protective series of legislative elements to:
... Protect ... the unique single family neighborhood that comprises Coconut Grove."
In Section 3, you are asked to find that "this zoning classification change:
(a) is in conformity with the adopted MCNP;
(b) is not contrary to the established land use pattern;
(c) will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent nearby districts;
(d) is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood ... ;
(e)
(f) is necessary due to changed or changing conditions;
(g) will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
(h) ...
(i)
(j) will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
(k)
(1) will not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner so as to
compromise the protection of public welfare.
Those items quoted are patently false. I therefore strongly request that you deny this
amendment.
Sincerely,