Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Samuel Dubbin-Letter to Elected Officials-Application of Sandpiper VillasD BBINLLP KRAVETZ VIA EMAIL Hon. Mayor Francis Suarez Hon. Chairman Keon Hardemon Hon. Vice Chairman Ken Russell Hon. Willy Gort, District One Hon. Joe Carollo, District Three Hon. Manolo Reyes, District Four Hon. Emilio Gonzalez, City Manager Hon. Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Hon. Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Submitted into the public record or item s on I lei i) . City Clerk June 14, 2018 SAMUEL J. DUBBIN, P.A. DIRECT (305) 357-9004 sdubbin@dubbinkravetz.com Subject: City Commission Agenda Item #4029; Application of Sandpiper Villas to Vacate Street and Park Space, and for Plat Approval Dear All: This firm represents 1000 Venetian Way Condominium Association, Inc. ("1000 Venetian."), in connection with the application of Sandpiper Villas Co -Op Apts., Inc. ("Sandpiper"), for the City to close, vacate, and discontinue for public use a portion of the Venetian Way that the Sandpiper currently uses for resident parking, as well as existing parkland, to allow that land to become part of the Sandpiper's plat. My client recommends that the item be deferred until late July so the public and the City have a transparent understanding concerning how the requested action can or will affect Sandpiper's future development plans. It appears that Sandpiper has been using public land, i.e. a portion of the dedicated street known as Venetian Way, for parking by its residents, without having the permission or right to do so, and that this application is intended to legalize that use. However, the staff's repeated references to this application's enhancement of future development cannot be ignored; yet there is nothing in this record explaining Sandpiper's future development plans, nor addressing how the vacation of the street and park would affect its ability to develop in the future. As currently proposed, the application should be rejected because it is inconsistent with the Code's requirements for a street vacation, and inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan's "no net loss for public parkland." A. The Application Does Not Disclose Future Development Plans. The City staff s analysis states, at page 3: "The purpose of the request is to annex the closed section of the Street and Median/Park into the approved Tract A to create a unified site for future development." However, there is nothing in the application, nor the staffs analysis, that informs the public, or ` - 5(xtv3\\11A-t 1,���tf �0 t\et\ti\* alCIA)caSv\��a��, 0 %��� � cr Q1200 ANASTASIA AVENUE • SUITE 300 • CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 ` TELEPHONE (305) 371-4700 • FAX (305) 371-4701 v',\\nC Hon. Mayor and City Commissioners June 14, 2018 Page 2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) 1` L + on ., I it" I ; City Clerk this Commission, or evidently the staff or the PZAB, what the "future development" plans are. This omission disserves the public interest, and violates the spirit if not the letter of the Code as well, which ordinarily would require submission of a preliminary site development plan, as well as any proposed changes in the use, height, area, and density districts or other regulations under the Miami 21." Sections 55-6 and 55-7(2). B. The Application Fails the Test Under Section 55-15(c) of the Code and Violates Policy PR-2.1.1 of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City staff's Analysis for Street Closure, which is part of the Commission's agenda materials, fails to justify Sandpiper's request under Section 55-15(c) of the City Code of Ordinances, as shown by the following discussion.' 1. Public Interest Finding: Is it in the public interest, or would the general public benefit from the vacation of the rights -of -ways or easements? The City's staff opines that vacating the street and park "may contribute for the generation of additional ad valorem taxes for the City to provide necessary services to its residents." (Emphasis supplied). This is insufficient to support the requested action. The City staff should be able to state definitively whether or not the action will increase ad valorem taxes, and give an approximate amount, or at least percentage increase expected. The staff also argues that "documents provided by the applicant shows that the Median/Park (zoned T5-R) has never been used as a public park. The median/park does benefit (sic) anyone else and is currently used exclusively by the residents of the Sandpiper Villa property as surface parking area. As such, the Median/Park closure will not deplete parklands from the city and will have no impact on the general public as the general public is not benefitted by the park in any way." This "finding" is preceded in the staff analysis by the statement that "It is also important to note that, based on the history of the site and documents provided by the applicant, it is found that the park (Zoned T5-R) has never been conveyed for public use as a park. Therefore, the request will not deplete parklands." Despite these two "findings," the proposed elimination of the parkland component will violate the City's Comprehensive Plan, Policy PR-2.1.1., which provides: The City has a no -net -loss policy for public parkland and will adopt procedures to this effect for park land in the City Zoning Ordinances, as described These objections are representative but not exhaustive of the flaws in the current application and analysis, and 1000 Venetian reserves the right to raise any other legal objections in any future challenge. DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP 1200 ANASTASIA AVENUE • SUITE 300 • CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 • TELEPHONE )305) 371-4700 Submitted into the publi record for item(s) Hon. Mayor and City Commissioners June 14, 2018 Page 3 in the 2007 Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan. These will allow only recreation and cultural facilities to be built on park land, will limit building footprint on any such land, will require that conversion of park land for any other purposes be subject to public procedures, and replace the converted park land with land similar in park, recreation, or conservation value in terns of usefulness and location. City Clerk The City staffs argument that this provision of the City law can be overlooked because the City itself "has never been conveyed for public use as a park" is absurd on its face. This Commission should not put its stamp of approval on a "policy" that allows the City's alleged negligence or failure to protect the public interest regarding parks to justify a decision to ignore the no net loss of park land requirement of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Public Interest Finding: Is the general public no longer using the rights -of -way or easement, including public service vehicles such as trash and garbage truck, police, fire, or other emergency vehicles? Assuming the accuracy of the statements that public trash, garbage, police fire, and other emergency vehicles do not use the area being vacated, the staff analysis of this criterion is not particularly objectionable, although elimination of possible access for emergency vehicles should be a concern in any event. 3. Public Interest Finding. Would there be no adverse effect on the ability to provide police, fire, or emergency services? The staff analysis states that "the Street closure will be reviewed by police, fire, and emergency services for compliance with their requirements." Yet, without the "review" indicated having occurred, the staff adds: "There would be no adverse effect on the ability to provide fire, police, or emergency services." This makes no sense for the staff to draw these conclusions without the public safety offices' prior review, and public disclosure thereof. More importantly, the staff adds the following hyperbolic -justification: "Moreover, the ability for the applicant to redevelop the Property under Miami 21 afforded by the vacation and closure may have a beneficial impact on police services as any new development will incorporate the guiding principal (sic) of Miami 21 of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design." Again, this "analysis" is problematic because of the broad reference to the applicant's ability to redevelop the Property under Miami 21, without any description of the parameters of such redevelopment potential, much less specific plans. The public is entitled to know what future development is being assumed or analyzed by the staff. And again, the assertion of improved public safety based on an unstated redevelopment based on "Crime Prevention through DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP 1200 ANASTASIA AVENUE • SUITE 300 • CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 • TELEPHONE (3051 371-4700 Hon. Mayor and City Commissioners June 14, 2018 Page 4 Submitted into the pub1i ., r record for ite(s)1 7 (, on (, I I �� 1 , City Clerk Environmental Design" sounds preposterous, especially without identifying any concrete plans or regulations being applied. 4. Public Interest Finding. Would the vacation and closure of the rights -of -way or easements have a beneficial effect on pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the area? The staff, again, vaguely alludes to future development as somehow having a beneficial impact on circulation, without describing what that development can or would entail: "Through the platting process, subdivision improvements will be made which will improve circulation and the pedestrian realm along the public right of way." In addition, the staff argues: "By approving the proposed Street and Median/Park closure, it will allow a comprehensive redevelopment program in the future which may benefit circulation in the area." (Emphasis supplied). Once again, the staff is engaging in complete speculation based on an unidentified "comprehensive redevelopment program" to hypothesize that it "may" benefit circulation in the area. However, it is difficult to imagine how any increase in the size or population of the structures on the subject property "may" benefit circulation in the area, and the staff does not provide the Commission or the public with any inkling of how this would be possible. C. Conclusion. For the foregoing and other reasons, 1000 Venetian maintains that the application does not satisfy the legal criteria for the relief requested, and urges the Commission to either defer the matter so that these points can be clarified, or deny the application. Respectfully, 5iUA. Samuel J. Du bin, P.A. cc: Iris Escarra, Esq. DUBBIN & KRAVETZ, LLP 1200 ANASTASIA AVENUE • SUITE 300 • CORAL GABLES. FLORIDA 33134 • TELEPHONE (305) 371-4700