Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Public Comments Submitted Online for the July 22, 2021 City Commission MeetingCommission Report Commission Meeting Public Comment - July 22, 2021 July 28, 2021 11:53 AM MDT Public Comment motero@miamigov.com First Last Nam Nam e e Attic a Gaal Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item RE. 5 9371 Eme rgen cy 555 Findi NE ng- 34th Wolf St berg Alvar ez and Part ners, Inc. We dont want to convert Miami into another San Francisco. We need affordable house spread out throughout Miami within reasonable driving distance to where people work. Without affordable housing, we will continue to look more like a 3rd woad country. You want middle class families to stay in Miami and not move to other parts of Florida. Average Miami salaries are making it harder and harder to find affordable housing, require and incentivize developers to invest into affordable housing. Crime rates can only rise if working class people have to move out. Voters are watching, be on the record of promoting affordable housing for LOCALS, non locals may be buying but they don't vote. RE. 5 9371 555 Eme NE rgen Vote NO on SR-1 The planning and zoning board reviews is necessary to stop the abuses of large 34th cy corporate landlords. As resident of Hamilton on The Bay, I need to say that Aimco/Air communities has St, Findi still not done right by us. We live in deplorable conditions. Constant High levels of noise at 100 plus Kath Leije Mia ng - decibeles, constant harassment with letters wanting to double our rent if we don't leave, dosing open erine r mi FL Wolf areas obligating us to take our pets out of the premises exposing us to a no secure neighborhood. This 3313 berg company is collecting rent, when they have taken everything from us. Including pest control. I have 7. Alvar insects inside my home. We all deserve decent housing, we don't even have that and by law is ok. Apt ez Change the laws to protect us. 1405 and Part ners, Inc. Dolt y 409 Maci Visc ntyr aya e Aven ue SR. 1 9227 Ame nd Cod e- Time to Act This is not in the best interest of your constituents. Please allow the PZAB to do its nob. 9456 Submittal -Public Comments Submitted Online for the July 22, 2021 City Commission Meeting First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item Ham RE. itton 5 OnB 9371 ay Eme 555 rgen NE cy 34th Findi Dian Pere Stre ng - a z et Wolf Apt berg 1408 Alvar Mia ez mi, and FL Part 3313 ners, 7 Inc. There is a housing crisis and big building management cannot lie, abuse and mistreat rent paying tenants! We have done all things that the management has requested but they are retaliating against us in every way possible; lack of security and safety, privacy, extreme noise LeveLs, all amenities have been shutdown ! They are not considering individual needs and concerns regarding financial challenges to find proper and equivalent housing! The citizens of Miami are gradually seeing their quality of life eroded as their unique neighborhoods are bombarded with new, dense, tall developments that the residents don't want. The question is: why don't the voters' elected representatives listen more to the voices of the ordinary citizens who live in these neighborhoods than they do to the developers of the new projects? Two recent examples, one already done and one about to happen, illustrate the problem. On June 24, the City Commission ignored the recommendations of its own planning staff, the citizen Planning Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB), and unanimous neighborhood opposition from Silver Bluff residents. Over all these objections, the Commission 2535 approved a 10-story mixed -use building on Coral Way and SW 27th Ave. The Commissioners listened to INA SR. the developer and were deaf to the neighborhood residents who elected them. Why is that? On July 22, GUA 1 the Commission is scheduled to consider a proposed ordinance (Item SR. 1) that would limit the power of AV. 9227 PZAB to defer a development when the developer faits to comply with PZAB's legitimate request that the COC Ame developer meet with neighbors and neighborhood associations. This is almost always the reason for JOY NEL ONU nd PZAB's deferrals. Most developers comply, and the compromises reached lead to a good result for all CE SON T Cod concerned. Some larger or more intrusive developments meet strong neighborhood resistance. It takes GRO e - time for developers to meet with neighborhood advocates to work through issues like traffic, affordable VE, Time housing, crime, and gentrification. Time is money. Rather than meet as PZAB requires, some developers FL to threaten to sue the City, saying the deferrals deny them "due process" when it is their own failure to meet 3313 Act that causes the repeated deferrals. The solution is not for PZAB simply to deny the developer application 3 and "just send it to Commission," as one developer publicly requested for a huge project in Little Haiti. That was an insult both to PZAB members performing their volunteer citizen duty, and to the City Commission as well, the implication being that a vote there was guaranteed to be in the developer's favor. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the bulk of campaign contributions in Miami come from big developers and their lawyers. That money has a huge impact on local elections where Commissioners are routinely elected and re-elected by votes of less than 20% of the electorate. To counterbalance the weight and power of developer money, PZAB's power of deferral should remain intact to ensure that the voices of "mere" ordinary residents of Miami's neighborhoods continue to be heard. 243 NE SR. 59th 1 Terra 9227 ce, Ame pete Ehrli Lem nd ch on Cod City, e - Mia Time mi to 3313 Act 7 SR 1. Please vote NO. Respect the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board (PZAB) to do its due diligence. Sometimes the best results take time. Please do NOT pander to and use attorneys who gleefully brag City commissioners wilt ALWAYS vote for whatever scheme is being pushed by the and use attorneys customers. Please vote NO to automatic up zoning. Please show independence from Lobbyists and concurrently vote to show respect to citizen boards. Thank you. First Last Nam Nam e e john John Don Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item SR. 1 9227 3980 Ame snyd Hard nd er ie Cod Ave e - Time to Act PH. 3 9315 Dire 3980 ct Sny Hard CM - der ie Traffi Ave c Cal ming Devi ces 1852 Dere SW sz 24 St PZ. 6 8997 Rez onin g- 2200 SW 27 Av and 2222 SW 27 Av Remarks re SR-1 We ask our commission representatives to vote against SR-1 as It would limit the power of PZAB to defer a development when the developer faits to comply with PZAB's legitimate request that the developer meet with neighbors and neighborhood associations. This is almost always the reason for PZAB's deferrals. In addition, PZAB has not capriciously delayed development. Most developers are willing to negotiate the details of their plan with residents, resulting in greater acceptance of development and greater recognition of existing residents' property rights to the quiet enjoyment of their property. Life is not all about money. Some more intrusive developments meet considerable neighborhood resistance. It takes time and effort for developers to meet with neighborhood advocates to work through issues like traffic, additional density, livability, and compatibility with the neighborhood. Developers are reluctant to make concessions, and to spend the time to negotiate. They may find it advantageous to have their project denied by PZAB so they can immediately appeal to the city commission, thus undercutting the incentive for developers to negotiate. SR-1 would further undercut the legitimate PZAB requirement that developers negotiate with residents. We repeat, PZAB has not capriciously delayed development. To lessen PZAB's ability to facilitate acceptable development wilt greatly increase the burden on the city commission to do so. The implication that a vote in the city commission is guaranteed to be in the developer's favor is an insult to those empowered to mitigate unrestrained greed by weighing the rights of developers against those of residents. Remarks re PH-3 The call to "WAIVE THE REQUIRED RESIDENT CONCURRENCE AND EXEMPT THE BALLOTING PROCESS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITIOUSLY PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF DEVICEs THAT WILL SERVE TRAFFIC FLOW REDESIGN, IMPEDIMENT, AND PERHAPS CALMING is indicative of the commission's lack of respect for the rights of their constituents and their input on issues which directly affect them and their property values. Such changes are required to have the concurrence of a supermajority of residents as evidenced by secret ballot. Has the city shown any evidence that because of accidents, traffic fatalities, or other substantive evidence that the conditions of streets in existence for many years are so dangerous as to usurp residents' rights to input? The resolution claims to be designed to expeditiously allow construction of what many may consider something other than desirable, or calming. It seems that city officials wish to supplant the democratic process as they know better than the resident homeowners who wilt be affected, not only temporarily but permanently by what would be constructed, for better or worse. Please vote NO to excluding resident homeowners' input. The attempt to circumvent procedures required for changes to the traffic flow in the so called cause of "traffic calming" runs counter to government that is fair and open to public scrutiny. The residents of neighborhoods have a right to voice their opinions and wishes in regard to what traffic flow impediments are constructed on their street and adjacent to their property. Two weeks ago the similar PH- 1 Left out the fact that after conducting three rounds of required balloting; three times the advocates for "traffic calming" did not receive the required vote from the residents in favor of traffic calming devices. The procedure counted only ballots completed, thus representing residents' authentic decisions. So in essence the residents voted (3 times) against and then the commission took matters into their own hands and approved the project anyway. RE: PZ 6; the Re -zoning of SW 27AV and Coral Way, a 10 story behemoth zoned for 5 stories, that you have approved with a covenant Commissioners, you ignored all the City experts, the professional boards that you created, the 75,000 residents in the adjacent neighborhoods, and the current Miami 21 zoning code. Do you have any experience in city planning? How many of you have taken a university course toward a degree in urban planning or even attended a single seminar? All we heard last month was the Jennings Disclosure, that you all had a sit down discussion with the developer, Pablo L. Cejas, or his representative. Did you meet with any residents or shop owners of the adjacent neighborhoods? I'm sure that you'll defend your decision as doing right for the city and representing those who voted for you, including me. And I'm with you on doing what is right for the City. With your approval of this behemoth by neo-developer, Pablo L. Cejas, this wilt be the first of many rezoning applications - from a currently Miami 21 zoned five story buildings agreed to by all City stakeholders, to a re -zoned row of possible 12 story buildings and yes, box storage facilities, which wilt now extend from SW 32 Av to SW 17 Av. Last month, most of you, for some odd reason, many of you Commissioners reaffirmed your concept of manhood. Welt it's time to, Man up! Tell the people of the City of Miami exactly: Why did you approve this re -zoning? Explain your vote. What is your rationale? Most importantly, what is your creative vision of Coral Way? Are there large patio gardens with this development? Pedestrian -friendly setbacks? The trolleys — which you are responsible for — are already over capacity. And you wilt be adding more car traffic onto historic Coral Way. As per Covenant Item #8, on which sides of the buildings wilt the 8-story digital billboards selling Liquor, perfume, cars, and ipads light up the area - on two sides, or four? Let's hear some manly intelligent reasoning instead of giddy frivolity. First Last Nam Nam e e Mart a Zaya s Stre et Addr ess 3084 SW 6 Stre et Age nda Public Comment Item PZ. 5 9110 Rez onin g- 3231 SW 23 Ter Please protect residential zoning. Residents in T3 zones invest in these communities to ensure peaceful enjoyment of their property. They invest, bond and build their community and respect the character of their neighborhood. Single family home owners want their "forever homes" to enrich their Lives. They do not see their homes as developers and New Urbanists do as if they were simply transferable commodities to enrich their pockets. Please provide stability to our residential neighborhoods and protect Single Family zoning. The working class is being both priced out and zoned of the American Dream with continued upzoning of Single Family neighborhoods. Please protect our homes. SR. 1617 1 tiger 9227 tail Ame Please do not approve this - you are Limiting residents participation by ending the board option to defer. ELtie Hay ave. nd This pushes everything to commission meetings and commissioners wilt be forced to defer decisions dock Mia Cod backing up commission agendas. Do you realty want that? mi e - 3313 Time 3 to Act RE. 9 9253 Resc ind Ben dros 1450 Res Dr.D oluti s- N.E Please Preserve Library! ALlapattah needs more recreational spaces for youth and the community. hrot ons - Mind 2nd NO.Community input in developments that affect the ALtapattah community is essential. y ingaL ave 20- 0295 and NO. 21- 0238 RE. 5 9371 555 Eme NE 34th rgen cy Pease Stop the construction at Hamilton on the Bay white we are still Living in the building. The drilling St. Findi noise is unbearable and dust in our units. No secure at all to continue in this building and we have done Hug Trevi 1209 ng - everything my Lawyer David Einnker has told me to do and everything Aimcos Lawyers have said and also o no WoLf the commissioners had said. Please help us. They haven't reached to us and negotiate individually as they Mia mi berg said they were going to do. Help us get out of the building as soon as possible but with dignity. We are ALvar human beings, not animals. I want to Live my Live in peace! Thank you very much Hugo Trevino FL. ez 3313 7 and Part ners, Inc. First Last Nam Nam e e Aleja ndro Diaz Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item 979 PR - SW Pres 11th enta Me gustaria que el proyecto de La 5 cane o play street estuviera integrado al proyecto original del parque. St tions Es importante tambien considerar un espacio adecuado para Las mascotas. I would like the 5 street or Mia and play street project to be integrated into the original park project. It is also important to consider a suitable mi FL Prod space for pets. 3312 ama 9 tions 555 Cha NE Bill mbe 34T rs HST 2504 SR. 1 9227 Ame nd Cod e- Time to Act I, Bill Chambers, am speaking on SR1- Item # 9227 and am a constituent in zip 33137. Please vote NO on SR1 as the Planning & Zoning board review IS necessary to Limit abuses of Large corporate Landlords. Not only has Aimco/Air Communities still NOT done right by us, they are finding new ways of punishing us. I had complained to the building manager about the fact that the hallways are no Longer air- conditioned, but the other day, I noticed an apartment door ajar by the elevator. It was being propped open with a piece of drywall. Hot, humid air was blasting into the hallway and when I went in expecting to find a worker, I was shocked to find that all the glass doors were wide open to the rain and wind, and no one was there (it was the day Elsa was passing west of us). We were simply being punished. We have had a problem with heavy ash being blown into each apartment during this construction, to the point where months ago I bought a stronger fitter for the NC intake and had our maintenance crew install it. The other day I noticed that the door to the A/C closet was ajar and I opened it to find that my fitter had been removed and tossed to one side. I want to point out that these incidents represent specific actions that are not to be expected from the normal operation of a construction crew. These extra -curricular activities are clearly being done at the instruction of their client, Aimco. The Grey Ash with which we have had to Live accumulates to obnoxious Levels on an hourly basis. We had to put down one of our cats a few months ago and the other has required expensive treatment for gastrointestinal and respiratory issues. Like a canary in a coat mine, these animals are warning us of the pernicious effects of this heavy grey ash as they groom themselves without knowing the dangers. To recap, it is dear to me that Aimco is directing this assault on us and should be punished for this despicable behavior. Since we no Longer have any maintenance crew in the building, all this is simply the construction workers doing the bidding of Aimco management. Please help your constituents. Davi Oco 499 PZ. Comments for PZ.2 4541 and PZ.3 4545 The NE 37th Street/NE 38th Street enclave which is clearly d mo NE 3 defined as it is bordered to the west by Biscayne Blvd, to the south side by 1-195 expressway, to the east 37th 4545 by Stearns Park and to the north by NE 38th Street. My family owns and resides at 499 NE 37th Street. ST Rez The Location of the Lots on NE 37th Street has significant bearing on the value of their Land and structures onin due to the existence of external obsolescence from the adjacent 1-195 highway traffic noise. NE 37th g - Street runs parallel to 1-195. In addition, the Lots on NE 37th Street are in the path of major air traffic, 428, according to the 2001 FDOT noise study report. Because of these conditions, these dwellings will never be 430, of the same use and value as some of the dwellings in nearby Morningside or Bay Point, therefore Land 448, utilization at this moment is not consistent with its best value, purpose or potential and is inappropriate, 454 but simply accidental from a historic point of view. Notwithstanding that the dwellings not associated with NE the applicant have been kept in best condition possible given the circumstances. Increased height and 38 more flexibility to construct commercial buildings should be allowed on these 2 streets NE 37th/NE 38th St, Street because of the unique problems and isolated/exclusive nature of this particular enclave. Without and increased height this enclave will remain neglected. This enclave is a sore spot with no new investment or 433, improvement since 1991. There are 3 empty Lots which have sat empty since the 1980s, 2 of which are 441, being used as temporary parking Lots. The NE 37th/NE 38th Street enclave has unique problems and 457 needs which demands that it should not be grouped as the same zoning district as Morningside or Bay NE Point. However, I would only support the application for the upzoning of the Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th 37 Street if the zoning is to be equally applied to all the Lots on these two streets. SPOT UPZONING IS St ILLEGAL. It would not only unfairly devalue the remaining Lots if only certain Lots are upzoned and the other Lots are not upzoned, but it would serve to compromise the availability of the tools necessary to maintain their parcel's equal opportunity to improve them in uniformity for the area as a whole which is in the best interest of not only the residents but the City. The applicant is trying to get a spot upzoning in this secluded enclave of only his assembly of properties. The applicant has 2 properties on NE 37th ST and 4 properties on NE 38th ST. If the spot upzoning were to be approved as per the application, there would be 3 properties on NE 37th ST (499, 491, 481, 471) and 1 property on NE 38th ST (520) which would not be included in the upzoning. To illustrate the fact that is would be illegal spot zoning, 2 of the applicant's properties are Located on my street (NE 37th ST) which have a combined Linear feet of 240. The rest of the street including my property is an additional 300 Linear feet for a total of 540 Linear feet. My property has 120 Linear feet and it is the property fronting the bay view. If the City permitted the upzoning of this secluded enclave on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street only for the applicant's assembly First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item of properties, it would mean that there would be spot upzoning only 240 linear feet of the 540 linear feet. The City does not permit spot zoning. The excluded parcels from the upzoning would be at a disadvantage in their relationship to the applicant's parcels. There is no assurance that the applicant wilt not raise objection to those 5 properties in this enclave (499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street) which are currently excluded from his application from being upzoned in the future on the basis that they wilt block the view of the bay for his structures. ALL the properties in this secluded enclave need to be afforded equal opportunity and flexibility for improvement which wilt keep the uniformity of the enclave. There is no uniformity or benefit to the neighborhood or its residents for the existence of 2 significantly different zoning on the same street (NE 37th Street) which has only 540 Linear feet. More importantly, assigning the entire NE 37th Street to have the same upzoning would not be injurious to the applicant. Spot Zoning would be inconsistent with the City's goals. Therefore, I would Like to formally put on the record that if upzoning is allowed for the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street, the same upzoning should be conferred on the other Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street which are 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street, but at a minimum the entire NE 37th Street should be upzoned equally especially due to the external obsolescence. I would Like to bring to your attention the Comprehensive Plan Amendment along the Miami River. ORDINANCE 13753. The Commission found it necessary, when faced with a similar situation, to make amends to the upzoning so that there was uniformity. ORDINANCE 13753. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" OF THE APPROXIMATELY 1.77 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1515, 1529, AND 1543 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A'; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. http://miamifL.igm2.com/Citizens/DetaiL_LegiFiLe.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=1885&MediaPosition=&ID=3403&CssCLass= I would kindly request that it be included in the record that if you approve this upzoning application for 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street then you should also find it necessary that the same upzoning should be applied to the other Lots that run along 37th/NE 38th street which includes 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street. I cannot support Spot Zoning of only the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street. The zoning on these 2 streets should be applied uniformaLty. Furthermore, the existing alleyway between NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street is a communally owned by all of the parcels on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street with easements and rights of way which must be respected and upheld. If the applicant was to exdusiveLy take control of the alleyway within his project site (thus excluding all others), it would create a taking of private property from the adjacent Landowners (by a private individual) without just compensation. I would assume that would be iLtegal and thus not something this Commission has the power to approve through an agenda item. Davi Oco 499 PZ. Comments for PZ.2 4541 and PZ.3 4545 The NE 37th Street/NE 38th Street enclave which is clearly d mo NE 2 defined as it is bordered to the west by Biscayne Blvd, to the south side by 1-195 expressway, to the east 37th 4541 by Stearns Park and to the north by NE 38th Street. My family owns and resides at 499 NE 37th Street. Stre Land The Location of the Lots on NE 37th Street has significant bearing on the value of their Land and structures et Use due to the existence of external obsolescence from the adjacent 1-195 highway traffic noise. NE 37th Street runs paraLtel to 1-195. In addition, the Lots on NE 37th Street are in the path of major air traffic, 428, according to the 2001 FDOT noise study report. Because of these conditions, these dwellings wilt never be 430, of the same use and value as some of the dwellings in nearby Morningside or Bay Point, therefore Land 448, utilization at this moment is not consistent with its best value, purpose or potential and is inappropriate, 454 but simply accidental from a historic point of view. Notwithstanding that the dwellings not associated with NE the applicant have been kept in best condition possible given the circumstances. Increased height and 38 more flexibility to construct commercial buildings should be allowed on these 2 streets NE 37th/NE 38th St, Street because of the unique problems and isolated/exclusive nature of this particular enclave. Without and increased height this enclave wilt remain neglected. This enclave is a sore spot with no new investment or 433, improvement since 1991. There are 3 empty Lots which have sat empty since the 1980s, 2 of which are 441, being used as temporary parking Lots. The NE 37th/NE 38th Street enclave has unique problems and 457 needs which demands that it should not be grouped as the same zoning district as Morningside or Bay NE Point. However, I would only support the application for the upzoning of the Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th 37 Street if the zoning is to be equally applied to all the Lots on these two streets. SPOT UPZONING IS St ILLEGAL. It would not only unfairly devalue the remaining Lots if only certain Lots are upzoned and the other Lots are not upzoned, but it would serve to compromise the availability of the tools necessary to maintain their parceL's equal opportunity to improve them in uniformity for the area as a whole which is in the best interest of not only the residents but the City. The applicant is trying to get a spot upzoning in this secluded enclave of only his assembly of properties. The applicant has 2 properties on NE 37th ST First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item and 4 properties on NE 38th ST. If the spot upzoning were to be approved as per the application, there would be 3 properties on NE 37th ST (499, 491, 481, 471) and 1 property on NE 38th ST (520) which would not be included in the upzoning. To illustrate the fact that is would be illegal spot zoning, 2 of the applicant's properties are Located on my street (NE 37th ST) which have a combined Linear feet of 240. The rest of the street including my property is an additional 300 Linear feet for a total of 540 Linear feet. My property has 120 Linear feet and it is the property fronting the bay view. If the City permitted the upzoning of this secluded enclave on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street only for the applicant's assembly of properties, it would mean that there would be spot upzoning only 240 Linear feet of the 540 Linear feet. The City does not permit spot zoning. The excluded parcels from the upzoning would be at a disadvantage in their relationship to the applicant's parcels. There is no assurance that the applicant wilt not raise objection to those 5 properties in this enclave (499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street) which are currently excluded from his application from being upzoned in the future on the basis that they wilt block the view of the bay for his structures. ALL the properties in this secluded enclave need to be afforded equal opportunity and flexibility for improvement which wilt keep the uniformity of the enclave. There is no uniformity or benefit to the neighborhood or its residents for the existence of 2 significantly different zoning on the same street (NE 37th Street) which has only 540 Linear feet. More importantly, assigning the entire NE 37th Street to have the same upzoning would not be injurious to the applicant. Spot Zoning would be inconsistent with the City's goals. Therefore, I would Like to formally put on the record that if upzoning is allowed for the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street, the same upzoning should be conferred on the other Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street which are 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street, but at a minimum the entire NE 37th Street should be upzoned equally especially due to the external obsolescence. I would Like to bring to your attention the Comprehensive Plan Amendment along the Miami River. ORDINANCE 13753. The Commission found it necessary, when faced with a similar situation, to make amends to the upzoning so that there was uniformity. ORDINANCE 13753. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" OF THE APPROXIMATELY 1.77 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1515, 1529, AND 1543 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A'; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. http://miamifL.igm2.com/Citizens/DetaiL_LegiFiLe.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=1885&MediaPosition=&ID=3403&CssCLass= I would kindly request that it be included in the record that if you approve this upzoning application for 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street then you should also find it necessary that the same upzoning should be applied to the other Lots that run along 37th/NE 38th street which includes 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street. I cannot support Spot Zoning of only the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street. The zoning on these 2 streets should be applied equally because all the Lots on these 2 streets in this enclave are exposed to the same external obsolescence. Furthermore, the existing alleyway between NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street is a communally owned by all of the parcels on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street with easements and rights of way which must be respected and upheld. If the applicant was to exdusiveLy take control of the alleyway within his project site (thus excluding all others), it would create a taking of private property from the adjacent Landowners (by a private individual) without just compensation. I would assume that would be illegal and thus not something this Commission has the power to approve through an agenda item. First Last Nam Nam e e Daw Weft n man Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item PZ. 7 8999 Land Use - 60 & 70 NW 73 St; CONCERNED ISSUES REGARDING PETITIONS 8999 The request to change the current zoning from 7320 medium density multifamily residential to general commercial, but excluding some existing residential properties that are zoned T5-R, is a significant change in both the use and FLR. LBRW is casting itself as 7324 the champion of the community for which it has made a significant investment in the area. However, its 203 request for a spot zoning change wilt adversely affect the character of the neighborhood as a whole. NE 7328 Specifically, it wilt Lead to more visitors in the area, increased commercial traffic, odor, noise and safety 86 issues. Amending Ordinance No. 10544, would allow for the creation of a new Land use pattern that could Stre 7338 be disruptive in terms of incompatible encroachment into the surrounding area, Lack of buffers, safety et issues, noise, odor and visual intrusions of Light pollution of peace and privacy. Homeowners face the 7400 prospect of damage to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties. Moreover, current & homeowners that are excluded from LBRW's request for general commercial zoning on certain blocks wilt 7406 suffer a significant diminution in the values of their properties. The proposed spot change, as currently NW proposed, is unfair. Mia mi Ct; 7301 7395 7401 First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item PZ. 8 9000 Rez onin g- 60 & 70 NW 73 St; CONCERNED ISSUES REGARDING PETITION 9000 The request to change the current zoning from T5-R 7320 to T6-8-0, but excluding some existing residential properties that are zoned T5-R, is a significant change in both the use and FLR. LBRW is casting itself as the champion of the community for which it has made a 203 7324 significant investment in the area. However, its request for a spot zoning change will adversely affect the NE character of the neighborhood as a whole. Specifically, it will lead to more visitors in the area, increased Daw Well 86 7328 commercial traffic, odor, noise and safety issues. Amending Ordinance No. 13114, would allow for the n man creation of a new and use pattern that could be disruptive in terms of incompatible encroachment into the Stre et 7338 surrounding area, lack of buffers, safety issues, noise, odor and visual intrusions of light pollution of peace and privacy. Homeowners face the prospect of damage to the reasonable use and enjoyment of their 7400 properties. Moreover, current homeowners that are excluded from LBRW's request for T6-8-0 on certain & blocks wilt suffer a significant diminution in the values of their properties. The proposed spot change, as 7406 currently proposed, is unfair. NW Mia mi Ct; 7301 7395 7401 RE. 5 555 9371 NE Eme 34 rgen St cy Apt Findi Dad Rom 907 ng - N/A o ano Mia Wolf mi , berg Flori Alvar da ez 3313 and 7 Part ners, Inc. SR. 1 9227 555 Ame Attil Gaal NE nd N/A a 34th Cod st e - Time to Act First Last Nam Nam e e Sofi Cue a nca step han Stre et Addr ess 515 SW 12 AVE SUIT E 525 1638 sw Linn 11th terra ce Age nda Public Comment Item RE. 8 9368 Jose Mart Park Ada ptive Red esig n Proj ect PZ. 5 9110 Rez onin g- 3231 SW 23 Ter N/A N/A End of Report