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."