Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Public Comments Submitted Online for the September 23, 2021 City Commission MeetingCommission Report Commission Meeting Public Comment - September 23, 2021 September 24th, 2021, 8:45 a.m. EST Public Comment motero@miamigov.com Stre First et Agenda Name Last Name Addr Item Public Comment ess The section of the proposed CRA at the south west is not a part of the PH. 5 area in need of affordable housing. Medium income in this census tract in 398 9447 2010 was in excess of $160,000. The nearby but not adjacent area of the 0 Approve west Grove Has a medium income of $ 31,500. Coconut grove affordable John Snyder Hard housing in a nutshell ie Redevelo https://censusreporter.org/profiles/14000US12086007103-census-tract- Ave pment 7103-miami-dade-fl/ Analysis: Clearly not all census tracts are the same. Plan Probably the same solution is not appropriate for all of these areas, which differ as to income, to such a large degree. On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 6:03 PM Geoffrey Bash &It;geoffreybash@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Elected Officials- I respectfully request that you honor the official request by the applicant and his representatives to defer PZ items #3 & #4 on the 9/23/21 City Commission Agenda. Mr. Bloomberg contacted the community recently to advise of his wife's pending surgery this week. Please schedule these REZONING items to move forward at the very earliest possible without further exceptions or deferrals. Mr. Bloomberg and I discussed the fact PZ. 3 4541 that community members of NE 39th St and other neighborhoods have Land Use not been invited to any presentation of the applicant's intentions over the three years this REZONING application has been active nor prior to 448 428, such. A brief zoom meeting during covid hosted by Andres Althabe was Geoffr Bash NE 430, 448, vague and incurred sound and visual interruptions without opportunity ey 39th 454 NE to Q & A into the details due to meeting timeline restraints. The St 38 St, commission's protocol requiring the public to speak on a matter at city 44d1, 457433hall prior to any meeting or the applicant's presentation to the NE 37 St Commission at first reading places the community members who reside near the subject parcels in a significant disadvantage. Kindly requesting that the public be permitted to speak AFTER the applicant's presentation when this item eventually moves forward to first reading. There have already been years of deferrals and the applicant's previous application along the north side of NE 38th St was deferred for more than a decade! Thank you in advance for any consideration given to the above matters. Respectfully, Geoffrey Bash 448 NE 39th ST Miami, FL 33137 ph: 305.401.9001 Jacqu CotareloEch 181 PR. 1 My family and I do NOT support any change (or closing) to the Badia eline agarrua 5 9544 Activity Center, located at 7121 SW 3 st. This center serves the elderly 10825 Submittal -Public Comments Submitted Online for the September 23, 2021 City Commission Meeting SW Protocol population of the Flagami and neighboring vicinity with much needed 16 Item services and assists the elderly population to live independently. My St mother has been attending this facility for over 12 years, she has participated in art exhibitions, concerts and her favorite bingo. This facility helps our underserved elderly population by providing hot meals, social interaction, intellectual stimulation and general emotional well being. I am shocked that the City of Miami is entertaining closing it. By the very nature of advancing in years, the aged lose many capacities while increasing in social loneliness. This activity center helps to address these issues by helping the clients restore and improve some of them, such as improving physical function, intellectual nourishment, socialization, nutritional assistance and overall improving their quality of life. Be certain that if we are lucky to grow old, we should be blessed with a place outside our home, that offers us an opportunity to interact with similar individuals while improving our quality of life. 499 NE David Ocomo 37th Stre et 499 NE David Ocomo 37th Stre Madel yn Geoffr ey et PZ. 4 4545 Rezoning - 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38 St, and 433, 441, 457 NE 37 St PZ. 3 4541 Land Use - 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38 St, and 433, 441, 457 NE 37 St If the applicant is requesting a deferral on this agenda item, I am not opposed to the deferral. If the applicant is requesting a deferral on this agenda item, I am not opposed to the deferral. Cent ro Mat PH.2 er 9441 I once again would Like to thank Commissioner Carollo for his unwavering 418 Allocate - love and support to our community especially the neediest families of SW CDBG Centro Mater. You are a beacon of hope to many in little Havana. This Llanes 4 Public allocation will help cover the child care and after school services to 175 aven Service low income children whose parents can't afford quality care. You truly ue Funds PY understand the value of investing in the future of our community. Your Mia 2021- support is duly noted and appreciated. May God Bless you Madelyn mi FI 2022 331 44 448 PZ. 4 From: Geoffrey Bash &It;geoffreybash@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep Bash NE 4545 20, 2021 at 6:03 PM Subject: Support for deferral PZ #3 & #4 9/23/21 City 39th Rezoning Commission Agenda To: Francis Suarez &It;FSuarez@miamigov.com>, St - 428, Ken Russell &It;KRussell@miamigov.com>, JCarollo@miamigov.com 430, 448, &It;JCarollo@miamigov.com>, Alex Diaz de la Portilla 454 NE&It;adiazdelaportilla@miamigov.com>, MReyes@miamigov.com 38 St, &It;MReyes@miamigov.com>, Jeffrey Watson and 433, &It;JWatson@miamigov.com>, Building department Permits Maurice 441, 457 Pons &It;mpons@ci.miami.fl.us>, Hearing Boards Olga Zamora NE 37 St &It;ozamora@miamigov.com>, Mendez, Victoria &It;vmendez@miamigov.com>, Ellis, Jacqueline &It;JEllis@miamigov.com> Cc: Elvis Cruz &It;elviscruz@mac.com>, Jose E. Gamas &It;jegamas@gamasconstruction.com>, Yanni lossifidis &It;yanniiossifidis@gmail.com>, andrea malo &It;maloandrea2@hotmail.com>, Elizabeth Batchelor Whalen &It;ebw777@aol.com>, Peter Ehrlich Jr &It;petersobe@aol.com> Dear Elected Officials- I respectfully request that you honor the official request by the applicant and his representatives to defer PZ items #3 & #4 on the 9/23/21 City Commission Agenda. Mr. Bloomberg contacted the community recently to advise of his wife's pending surgery this week. Please also re -schedule these REZONING items to move forward at the very earliest possible without further exceptions or deferrals. Mr. Bloomberg and I discussed the fact that community members of NE 39th St and other neighborhoods have not been invited to any presentation of the applicant's intentions over the three years this REZONING application has been active nor prior to such. A brief zoom meeting during covid hosted by Andres Althabe was vague and incurred sound and visual interruptions without opportunity to Q & A into the details due to meeting timeline restraints. The commission's protocol requiring the public to speak on a matter at city hall prior to any meeting or the applicant's presentation to the Commission at first reading places the community members who reside near the subject parcels in a significant disadvantage. Kindly requesting that the public be permitted to speak AFTER the applicant's presentation when this item eventually moves forward to first reading. There have already been years of deferrals and the applicant's previous application along the north side of NE 38th St was deferred for more than a decade! Thank you in advance for any consideration given to the above matters. Respectfully, Geoffrey Bash 448 NE 39th ST Miami, FL 33137 ph: 305.401.9001 Date September 22, 2021 RE: Comments for PZ.3 4541 and PZ.4 4545 Dear Members of the City Commission: My name is David Ocomo. My family and I own and reside at 499 NE 37th ST, Miami FL 33137, which is PZ. 3 a single family home and is our legal homestead. Please Note: The plots 4541 on NE 37th ST are part of the Buena Vista Badger Club which runs east to 499 Land Use west past NE 2nd Ave into the Design District. As an affected party, I NE - 428, write to express my opposition to the rezoning request and application 430, 448, for small scale comprehensive plan amendment by applicant, Magnolia David Ocomo 37th 454 NE Holding 38th Street, LLC, regarding the properties 428, 430, 454 NE 38th Stre 38 St, Street and 433, 441 and 457 NE 37th Street (the "Subject Properties"), if et and 433, the changes requested are not made as I have detailed below. My 441, 457 property is located less than 200 linear feet from the Subject Properties. NE 37 St My family and I would be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning and small-scale amendment to the City of Miami's Future Land Use Map. INTRODUCTION The NE 37th Street/NE 38th Street is an enclave which is clearly defined as it is bordered to the west by Biscayne Blvd, to the south side by I-195 expressway, to the east by Stearns Park and to the north by NE 38th Street. The location of the lots, especially on NE 37th Street (the Buena Vista Badger Club lots), has significant bearing on the value of their land and structures due to the existence of external obsolescence from the adjacent 1-195 highway traffic noise. NE 37th Street runs parallel to 1-195. In addition, the lots on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street are in the path of major air traffic, according to the 2001 FDOT noise study report. Because of these conditions, these dwellings will be challenged to be of the same use and value as some of the dwellings in nearby Morningside or Bay Point (Magnolia) if limited to the current zoning T5-R, therefore land utilization at this moment is not consistent with its best value, purpose or potential and is inappropriate, but simply accidental from a historic point of view. The dwellings not associated with the applicant have been kept in best condition. If there are sections of the enclave which look upkept, those appear to be through the neglect of the applicant and should not be used to characterize the enclave. Increased height and more flexibility to construct selective mixed use properties should be allowed UNIFORMLY on these 2 streets NE 37th/NE 38th Street because of the unique problems and isolated/exclusive nature of this particular enclave. Without increased height or changes in the zoning, this enclave will remain challenged. There has not been any new construction in this enclave since 1991. There are 3 empty lots which have sat empty since the 1980s, 2 of which are being used as temporary parking lots. The NE 37th/NE 38th Street enclave has unique problems and needs which demands that it should not be grouped as the same zoning district as Morningside or Bay Point. PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS "SPOT ZONING" I would only support the application for the upzoning of the lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street if the zoning is to be equally applied to all the lots on these two streets. SPOT UPZONING IS 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 equal opportunity to improve 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 only 3 properties on NE 37th ST (499, 491, 481, 471) and one property on NE 38th ST (520) which would not be included in the upzoning. Only 240 linear foot of the 540 linear foot on NE 37th Street would be allowed to have some form of commercial and/or mixed use while the rest would be limited to residential T5-R. Spot zoning doesn't get more clearer than this. To illustrate the fact that is would be illegal spot zoning, two 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 will 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 will 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 will 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. The requested rezoning proposes changes the current zoning, TR-5, to change it to T6-8-O. The change would be significant by allowing commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and increasing density up to 150 units per acre, which more than doubles the current allotted 65 units per acre. This change would result in classic spot zoning, by bifurcating a residential neighborhood without any transitional buffering. Unlike the other commercial zones in the area, which are separated by roads and highways, there is nothing to separate the residential uses in the neighborhood from the Subject Properties. This spot zoning would have the effect of devaluing existing residential neighboring lands including my property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS INCOMPLIANT WITH CH. 163, F.S. The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses and would also amount to a comprehensive plan version of "spot zoning". Approving the amendment, without including the rest of the neighborhood in said amendment, would subject it to challenge under F.S. 163.3187(5), as the amendment violates the rule of providing for compatibility of uses under F.S. 163.3177(6). It would also be subjected to challenge for inconsistency with policies expressed in the comprehensive plan, under F.S. 163.3215. The following policies would be violated by approval of the requested amendment: Policy LU-1.1.3 — "strategies to protect existing neighborhoods"; protect all areas from "encroachment of incompatible land uses" Policy LU-1.3.15 —City will "encourage a development matter that enhances existing neighborhoods by developing a balanced mix of uses included areas for employment, shopping, housing and recreation in close proximity to each other". Policy LU-1.6.9 — City will "establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of new development on existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements". There are no transitional buffers between this proposed commercial change, and the immediately adjacent residential uses. It is not consistent with the above policies and cannot be approved for this additional reason. CONCLUSION 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 499 NE David Ocomo 37th Stre et 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=&Meetingl D=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 uniformly. 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 exclusively 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. Date September 22, 2021 RE: Comments for PZ.3 4541 and PZ.4 4545 Dear Members of the City Commission: My name is David Ocomo. My family and I own and reside at 499 NE 37th ST, Miami FL 33137, which is PZ. 4 a single family home and is our legal homestead. Please Note: The plots 4545 on NE 37th ST are part of the Buena Vista Badger Club which runs east to Rezoning west past NE 2nd Ave into the Design District. As an affected party, I - 428, write to express my opposition to the rezoning request and application 430, 448, for small scale comprehensive plan amendment by applicant, Magnolia 454 NE Holding 38th Street, LLC, regarding the properties 428, 430, 454 NE 38th 38 St, Street and 433, 441 and 457 NE 37th Street (the "Subject Properties"), if and 433, the changes requested are not made as I have detailed below. My 441, 457 property is located less than 200 linear feet from the Subject Properties. NE 37 St My family and I would be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning and small-scale amendment to the City of Miami's Future Land Use Map. INTRODUCTION The NE 37th Street/NE 38th Street is an enclave which is clearly defined as it is bordered to the west by Biscayne Blvd, to the south side by I-195 expressway, to the east by Stearns Park and to the north by NE 38th Street. The location of the lots, especially on NE 37th Street (the Buena Vista Badger Club lots), has significant bearing on the value of their land and structures due to the existence of external obsolescence from the adjacent 1-195 highway traffic noise. NE 37th Street runs parallel to 1-195. In addition, the lots on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street are in the path of major air traffic, according to the 2001 FDOT noise study report. Because of these conditions, these dwellings will be challenged to be of the same use and value as some of the dwellings in nearby Morningside or Bay Point (Magnolia) if limited to the current zoning T5-R, therefore land utilization at this moment is not consistent with its best value, purpose or potential and is inappropriate, but simply accidental from a historic point of view. The dwellings not associated with the applicant have been kept in best condition. If there are sections of the enclave which look upkept, those appear to be through the neglect of the applicant and should not be used to characterize the enclave. Increased height and more flexibility to construct selective mixed use properties should be allowed UNIFORMLY on these 2 streets NE 37th/NE 38th Street because of the unique problems and isolated/exclusive nature of this particular enclave. Without increased height or changes in the zoning, this enclave will remain challenged. There has not been any new construction in this enclave since 1991. There are 3 empty lots which have sat empty since the 1980s, 2 of which are being used as temporary parking lots. The NE 37th/NE 38th Street enclave has unique problems and needs which demands that it should not be grouped as the same zoning district as Morningside or Bay Point. PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS "SPOT ZONING" I would only support the application for the upzoning of the lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street if the zoning is to be equally applied to all the lots on these two streets. SPOT UPZONING IS 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 equal opportunity to improve 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 only 3 properties on NE 37th ST (499, 491, 481, 471) and one property on NE 38th ST (520) which would not be included in the upzoning. Only 240 linear foot of the 540 linear foot on NE 37th Street would be allowed to have some form of commercial and/or mixed use while the rest would be limited to residential T5-R. Spot zoning doesn't get more clearer than this. To illustrate the fact that is would be illegal spot zoning, two 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 will 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 will 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 will 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. The requested rezoning proposes changes the current zoning, TR-5, to change it to T6-8-O. The change would be significant by allowing commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and increasing density up to 150 units per acre, which more than doubles the current allotted 65 units per acre. This change would result in classic spot zoning, by bifurcating a residential neighborhood without any transitional buffering. Unlike the other commercial zones in the area, which are separated by roads and highways, there is nothing to separate the residential uses in the neighborhood from the Subject Properties. This spot zoning would have the effect of devaluing existing residential neighboring lands including my property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS INCOMPLIANT WITH CH. 163, F.S. The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses and would also amount to a comprehensive plan version of "spot zoning". Approving the amendment, without including the rest of the neighborhood in said amendment, would subject it to challenge under F.S. 163.3187(5), as the amendment violates the rule of providing for compatibility of uses under F.S. 163.3177(6). It would also be subjected to challenge for inconsistency with policies expressed in the comprehensive plan, under F.S. 163.3215. The following policies would be violated by approval of the requested amendment: Policy LU-1.1.3 — "strategies to protect existing neighborhoods"; protect all areas from "encroachment of incompatible land uses" Policy LU-1.3.15 —City will "encourage a development matter that enhances existing neighborhoods by developing a balanced mix of uses included areas for employment, shopping, housing and recreation in close proximity to each other". Policy LU-1.6.9 — City will "establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of new development on existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements". There are no transitional buffers between this proposed commercial change, and the immediately adjacent residential uses. It is not consistent with the above policies and cannot be approved for this additional reason. CONCLUSION 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 Jeffre Y Jeffre Y King King 546 NE 57 ST PZ. 4 4545 Rezoning - 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38 St, and 433, 441, 457 NE 37 St 546 PZ. 3 NE 4541 57 Land Use ST - 428, 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=&Meetingl D=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 uniformly. 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 exclusively 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. Please deny PZ 3 and 4 for upzoning on NE 37 and NE 38 St at the Commission meeting Thursday Sept 23. It is obvious that the developer is trying to defeat the carefully crafted Miami 21 plan for this area. Please follow the Miami 21 plan for the future of Miami. Look again at the conclusion of the Chief of Land Development for our city. I assume that City Chiefs are highly qualified competent officials. Please do not override their professional opinion. "No site constraints are evident that generate any hardships that hinder design options preventing compliance with the Miami 21 Code. The proposed change of zoning to T6-8-0 introduce incompatible Uses, Height, and Density into a well - established low rise residentially zoned area. As presented, the change of zoning application does not justify the rezoning as requested." Please deny PZ 3 and 4 for upzoning on NE 37 and NE 38 St at the Commission meeting Thursday Sept 23. It is obvious that the developer is trying to defeat the carefully crafted Miami 21 plan for this area. Please follow the Miami 21 plan for the future of Miami. Look again at the 430, 448, 454 NE 38 St, and 433, 441, 457 NE 37 St conclusion of the Chief of Land Development for our city. I assume that City Chiefs are highly qualified competent officials. Please do not override their professional opinion. "No site constraints are evident that generate any hardships that hinder design options preventing compliance with the Miami 21 Code. The proposed change of zoning to T6-8-0 introduce incompatible Uses, Height, and Density into a well - established low rise residentially zoned area. As presented, the change of zoning application does not justify the rezoning as requested."