HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Grace Solares-Analysis on T3 Parking IssueT3 Parking Issue
File ID 16-00401zt
Miami City Commission, Item PZ.7
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Miami City Commission, Item PZ.4
Friday, July 29, 2016
This proposed amendment would be a huge mistake and very harmful to Miami's single
family and duplex neighborhoods, for three important reasons.
1. It is illegal.
2. It is a terrible public policy which would harm many neighborhoods across the city.
3. It appears to be physically impossible to execute the proposed building construction in
a way that is legal and not harmful to a residential neighborhood.
1. The proposed amendment is illegal.
The core premise of this zoning, that it can place commercial parking in a residentially -
zoned neighborhood, without changing the residential zoning, is illegal.
This is similar to the old SD-12 zoning that existed in the former zoning code, named
11,000. But this is even worse, because now it now allows a parking garage, not just
surface parking.
During Miami 21 we were told SD-12 was being abolished. This is a return to SD-12.
SD-12 was illegal, because SD-12 violated the Comprehensive Plan. But it took place
because it was never challenged in court.
This proposed zoning would also be illegal because it would violate the Future Land Use
Map of the Comprehensive Plan.
By allowing commercial parking in residential zoning, this change would violate the
comprehensive plan, as city staff has written in numerous analyses over the years. It
would violate Florida Statute chapter 163.
Also, there has been recent case law further protecting residential neighborhoods:
As the Third District Court of Appeals recently ruled in the Alvey v. City of North Miami t"
Beach case:
Submitted into the public
record f r item(s) PZ- '1'
on Z 9 / to City Clerk
R-ONO1L1,- 50\3 \- co,ce Sct,c()— LetVis-1 N, 1()\(k;), \);ie
"[T]hose who own property and live in a residential area have a legitimate and
protectable interest in the preservation of the character of their neighborhood
which may not be infringed by an unreasonable or arbitrary act of their
government." [ Allapattah Cmty. Ass'n, 379 So. 2d at 392.]
Zoning ordinances are enacted to protect citizens from losing their economic
investment or the comfort and enjoyment of their homes by the encroachment of
commercial development by an unreasonable or arbitrary act of their government.
Thus, the burden is upon the landowner who is seeking a rezoning, special
exception, conditional use permit, variance, site plan approval, etc. to demonstrate
that his petition or application complies with the reasonable procedural
requirements of the applicable ordinance and that the use sought is consistent
with the applicable comprehensive zoning plan."
The proposal also violates important neighborhood protection provisions in Miami 21:
7.1.2.8: Amendments to Miami 21 Code: "All changes shall maintain the goals of this
Code to preserve Neighborhoods"
Changing a duplex lot to a commercial parking garage does not preserve the
neighborhood.
7.1.2.8 c. 2. (g): [ An application for rezoning is required to submit an analysis of the
properties within a half -mile radius. ] "The analysis shall explain why the zoning change
is appropriate and why the existing zoning is inappropriate, in light of the intent of the
Miami 21 Code and particularly in relation to effects on adjoining properties."
Having T3 zoning behind commercial zoning is appropriate and takes place throughout
the entire city of Miami. It is impossible to write an analysis explaining why that
existing zoning would be inappropriate. To up -zone a T3 would be illegal, because that
requirement of the code cannot be satisfied.
Also, applying this proposal would constitute illegal spot zoning. To change the zoning
of one, or even several, T3 lots for the benefit of one specific owner would be spot
zoning. Spot zoning is illegal, as the City of Miami is well aware after the court ruled
that the Mercy Hospital up -zoning was an illegal spot zoning. The Mercy hospital spot -
zoning was for a parcel of approximately 6 acres, which is over 260,000 square feet. The
T3 lots that would be affected by this proposal could be as small as 5,000 square feet,
which is a far more egregious example of spot zoning.
2. The proposed amendment is a terrible public policy which would harm many
neighborhoods across the city.
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) PZ- 4
on 7/2 f// (p . City Clerk
Not allowing commercial parking in a residential zone is a core principal of zoning, and
even of Miami's zoning.
The city planning staff has said many times at public hearings like this one that
commercial parking is not allowed in residential zoning, and that residential zoning is to
be protected from commercial uses.
This proposal has enormous potential for a harmful domino effect, not just behind Coral
Way, but city-wide.
This is a very bad precedent to set.
If this is allowed to pass, then T5 and T4 and CI properties would likely also ask for the
ability to park in T3.
The city should not allow up -zonings behind commercial corridors, the city should up-
hold the zoning code and on -site parking requirements.
Over the years the city of Miami has strayed from its former values.
T3 neighborhoods should have T4 next to them on the commercial corridor, not T5 or T6.
Protecting residential zoning should take priority over enabling commercial property
maximization.
Commissioners, please uphold the intent of Miami 21 and the Comprehensive Plan.
Please do not allow any up -zonings into residential neighborhoods.
Your action to deny the up -zoning from T3 to T4 at the 13`h Avenue and Coral Way
property was the right thing to do. I thank you for that. Please keep up that good work.
Again, T3 neighborhoods should have T4 next to them on the commercial corridor, not
T5 or T6.
If a commercial property needs more parking, let it buy the lot next to it on the corridor,
not the lot behind it in the residential neighborhood.
3. It appears to be physically impossible to execute the proposed building
construction in a way that is legal and not harmful to a residential neighborhood.
The building construction proposed by this amendment does not make logical sense.
It says there is a preference for underground parking, but if the parking is not
underground, the applicant simply has to state a reason. Is that a joke?
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) PZ 4-
on 29 /Ca City Clerk
But even if they do put in underground parking, where will the required intake and
exhaust fans, to avoid carbon monoxide poisoning, be located? Those fans have to move
a large volume of air and are very noisy, completely incompatible in a T3 zone.
The amendment requires that any parking garage in T3 conform to the form -based
standards of T3, and be lined. That sounds benign, but the devil is in the details:
T3 requires a minimum rear setback of 20 feet for a single family house or duplex. T6
requires 10% of the lot or a 6-foot minimum rear setback when T3 is at the rear.
Will a parking garage built in T3 be non-contiguous with the T6 building behind it on the
corridor, or will a parking garage originating in the T6 continue unbroken into the T3?
If it is a continuous parking garage from T6 into T3, then it violates the 10% or 6 foot
rear setback of T6-8 and the 20 foot rear setback of T3. Such a continuous garage would
also block open sky, air and light from reaching the backyard of the house next door.
Who would want to live in the house next door to that?
The parking structure must be lined, meaning it must have a habitable housing unit(s)
facing the street. Townhouses have been mentioned as the way to achieve this. How
large can a townhouse be when it is setback 20 feet from the front property line, then has
a parking garage behind it on a 50 x 100 foot lot? Where will the residential parking for
that townhouse be located? Miami 21 requires it to be in the second or third layer, but as
the proposal states the commercial parking must not be accessible from the T3, only
through the property in the T6.
Will the law allow multiple 50 x 100 foot T3 lots to be aggregated, and a parking
structure to straddle several combined lots? If so, at that point this is no longer a T3
neighborhood, it is a row house neighborhood, which brings us back to the first point
about illegality, especially with M21 section 7.1.2.8.
For those and other reasons please vote down this amendment.
Submitted into the public
record f r item(s) P2 .4
on 7 21 / fp City Clerk