HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic CommentsFrom: Zamora, Olga
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:41 PM
To: Garcia, Francisco; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Iturrey, Jessica; Gray, Lakisha; Ellis, Jacqueline;
Snow, David; Agenda Office -DI
Subject: RE: Public Comments - Article 4 and Article 5
Attachments: Comments on FL PZ.1 _ 00924zt
Importance: High
Ail,
Upon further research, there was ONE public comment received. Attached is the comment received on September 14, 2016. It shall be
included as part of the back-up documentation for the item in the December 8, 2016 City Commission agenda.
Olga Zamora
Planning and Zoning Department, Hearing Boards
Direct Line - 305.416.2037
Visit us at: http://www.miamigov.com/hearing boards/
From: Zamora, Olga
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:17 PM
To: Garcia, Francisco; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Iturrey, Jessica; Gray, Lakisha; Ellis, Jacqueline; Snow, David; Agenda Office -DI
Subject: Public Comments - Article 4 and Article 5
Importance: High
All,
There were no emails received during the public comment period, beginning on August 30, 2016 and ending on September 14, 2016,
for the "Zoning Text Amendment — Article 4 and Article 5" proposed ordinance (File ID 15-00924zt).
This legislation is scheduled to be included on the November 17, 2016 City Commission agenda.
Regards,
Olga Zamora, Chief
Planning and Zoning Department, Hearing Boards
305.416.2037
Visit us at: htto://www.miamigov.com/hearing boards/
1
From: Rich Ard <raringtogo@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:01 PM
To: FutureLegislation
Subject: Comments on FL PZ.1 - 00924zt
To whom it may concern:
The city claimed that existing owners of T4 toTt6 lots would be grandfathered in to the new code. This claim by
P and Z is not in the legislation. If this was accurate information given out after the first reading, why is it not
specified in the actual legislation? If existing owners don't have the current code grandfathered in, if this goes
through, the first reading was voted on based on a false claim.
This legislation favors developers over owners of smaller parcels of T4 to T6. It will encourage more and larger
and higher buildings. (It's purpose is to give developers more negotiating clout when trying to buy out owners
of smaller Iots).
In a city which has not addressed flooding-- which is increasing particularly in the high rise areas (because of
inadequate drainage and more concerete, and rising tides) and not addressed increased vehicular traffic, bigger
and taller buildings will put more of a strain on our. Infrastructure.
The "Future Legislation" agenda announcement is completely confusing as to what date these comments are to
be received by, to be included for the final reading. No one reading the "future legislation" agenda item could
possibly understand the context, as it is written,
The city has not explained at all, what can be built on a T4 to T6 lot which is not large enough, or adequate in
terms of frontage. How can you pass this without owners of those properties even being told what they can
build if they do not make their lot part of an asemblage? And, you have not spelled out if -- whatever they can
build on their lots - they will have as "by right" or "warrant", and of not by right if theyll need a lawyer to
request the downsize ...?
You did not address how the apparaiser can value a lot after the legislation. In essence , for example, a T68 lot
is not a T68 lot unless it has 20,000 sf and a wide frontage. It is erroneous therefore to even call it a T68, since
it cant be viewed as such, since one cannot build on it (unless it is amassed with other T68's).
If this proceeds to a final reading without starting over, I request it not occur duing the dates when the city
knows it is hard for residents to make the meeting - before Thanksgiving and between the fall holidays, and
during or around Art Basel.
The city has not communicated how many properties of T4 to T6 lots will be downzoned by this legislation.
Also, since this will have such a major effect on the properties value, the city should have sent letters to all
owners who will be most effected (for example: all T68 owners with lots under 20,000 sf and frontages
considered too small). We are likely looking at tens of thousands of owners effected.
The city claimed throughout Miami 21 that they could not downsize lots because to do so would result in
lawsuits, the cost of which taxpayers will have to bare. What are the risks (legal costs) to taxpayers in this
regard if this downsizing of smaller lots and smaller frontages, are made illegal for building to that transect?
Please acknowledge in writing receipt of these comments and acknowledge they were received in time to be
accompanied with legislation for second reading.
i
Thank -you,
Richard Strell
PO Box 370445
Miami, Fl 33137
Cell: 7862900656
2