Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Public Comments Submitted Online for the June 11, 2026 City Commission MeetingOnline Public Comments for June 11, 2026 Miami City Commission Meeting Online Public Comment Report for June 11, 2026, Regular City Commission Meeting June 11, 2026 9:57 AM MDT Public Comment motero@miamigov.com First Last Street Nam Nam Addre e e ss Jam es Agenda Public Comment Item 901 PH. 2 NE #19239 71st Accept Sand street Final erso Plat - n Miam PRESC i, FL OTT 3313 ESTATE 8 S Reco rded Date My name is James Sanderson, and I am with the Bayside Residents Association, the community association within which Prescott Estates sits and the association that worked with the original applicant during the 2022 negotiations that allowed this project to move forward before it was later sold to the current development team. I am here regarding PH- 2, the Prescott Estates repcat. My understanding is that this item would accept the final plat for Prescott Estates, including five residential lots and one tract for a private road. Our concern is not simply the use of the word "private. " Our concern is whether the final plat being accepted today is consistent with what was represented to the neighborhood and to the City during the 2022 negotiations and appeal process. In the 2022 record, the applicant stated that the repcat would include language providing that the general public shall have a perpetual easement for immediate entry, continued access, and right of way over Prescott Lane, the common driveway. That language appears in the applicant's July 21, 2022 filing to the Commission, and it also appears in the Minor Street commitment Letter provided in connection with the BRA negotiations. At the July 28, 2022 Commission Jun hearing, the applicant also described the project as including public access through a new 11 road. So the question for us today is straightforward: does the final plat now before the 2026 Commission actually contain that public easement and right-of-way language? If it does, 7:03a then the record should clearly reflect that this is not simply a dosed private road. If it does m not, then we believe there may be a material inconsistency between what was MDT represented in 2022 and what is being formalized now. We respectfully ask that, before acceptance of the plat, the Commission confirm on the record the exact easement Language applicable to Prescott Lane and whether the public access commitment made during the 2022 process is being preserved in the final plat. Sources: 1. Current PH-2 backup / agenda item summary This says the purpose of the plat is to create five residential lots and one tract for a private road. 2. July 21, 2022 filing by Melissa Tapanes / Bercow to the City Commission This states the applicant would proffer a plat restriction saying: "The general public shall have a perpetual easement for immediate entry, continued access, and right of way to the common driveway shown as 'Prescott Lane' on this plat. " 3. Minor Street / BRA commitment letter This repeats the same pubcic- easement language over Prescott Lane / the common driveway. 4. July 28, 2022 City Commission hearing transcript At that hearing, the applicant described the project as including public access through a new road. Jesu Men 511 PZ. 4 As we all know, the removal of mature trees within the City of Miami has become a Jun s ende NE #19233 growing concern. That said, there are circumstances where the removal of a tree is 04 z 55th Intende necessary for public safety and property protection. The City relies on qualified arborists 2026 Ter. d and other experts to inspect individual trees and evacuate their condition before making 12:54 Miam Decisio recommendations regarding their future. Just as we place our trust in City professionals pm i, FL n when they assess and approve projects of much greater magnitude, we shoucd extend MDT 3313 Appear that same trust to their expertise in evacuating trees. Appeasing or attempting to haft the 7 - 501 removal process before fully understanding the reasons behind an expert's NE 55 recommendation may be premature and counterproductive. In many cases, trees may Ter present risks to nearby homes, structures, pedestrians, or utilities, and timely action may be required to prevent injury or property damage. Moving forward, greater consideration shoucd be given to planting the right tree species in appropriate Locations. For example, Large -growing trees should not be planted beneath high -voltage power Lines. Doing so 19453 Submittal -Public Comments Submitted Online for the June 11, 2026 City Commission Meeting First Last Street Nam Nam Addre e e ss Jesu s Men ende z Agenda Item PZ. 4 511 #19233 NE Intende 55th d Ter. Decisio Miam n i, FL Appear 3313 - 501 7 NE 55 Ter Public Comment would help avoid the extensive trimming often required by Florida Power & Light to protect electrical infrastructure and maintain reliable service, while also preserving the health and appearance of our urban canopy. Therefore, I respectfully ask the City Commission to uphold the recommendation of its experts and vote against the appectant's request to reverse the intended decision for Application No. 26-087. Thank you for your consideration. As we all know, the removal of mature trees within the City of Miami has become a growing concern. That said, there are circumstances where the removal of a tree is necessary for public safety and property protection. The City relies on qualified arborists and other experts to inspect individual trees and evacuate their condition before making recommendations regarding their future. Just as we place our trust in City professionals when they assess and approve projects of much greater magnitude, we shoucd extend that same trust to their expertise in evacuating trees. Appeasing or attempting to haft the removal process before fully understanding the reasons behind an expert's recommendation may be premature and counterproductive. In many cases, trees may present risks to nearby homes, structures, pedestrians, or utilities, and timely action may be required to prevent injury or property damage. Moving forward, greater consideration shoucd be given to planting the right tree species in appropriate Locations. For example, Large -growing trees should not be planted beneath high -voltage power Lines. Doing so would help avoid the extensive trimming often required by Florida Power & Light to protect electrical infrastructure and maintain reliable service, white also preserving the hearth and appearance of our urban canopy. Therefore, I respectfully ask the City Commission to uphold the recommendation of its experts and vote against the appectant's request to reverse the intended decision for Application No. 26-087. Thank you for your consideration. Reco rded Date Jun 04 2026 12:58 pm MDT 4130 RE. 6 Lybye #19395 r Ave, Authori Jun 11 Coco ze PSA Katri Morri nut 2013 I commend Commissioner Escacona for adding green dice to his district. I am in fuct 2026 na s support of this expenditure. 6:44a Grove NW 4 m FL ST & MDT 3313 410 NW 3 20AVE PZ. 4 #19233 3843 Intende Jun Kumq d I respectfully request that this Board deny the intended decision to remove a state- 11 Geor da Decisio 2026 uat threatened mahogany tree. The arborist's report is dearly exaggerated. Please at Least ge Guia n 4:36a Aven A eaL relocate this tree, or, if keeping it, request proper maintenance. ue pp - 501 MDT NE 55 Ter Katri Morri 4130 RE. 8 I support this agenda item. Thank you, Commoner Escacona for advancing transparency Jun na s Lybye #19276 and ease of access for City residents. 11 r Ave, Direct 2026 Coco CM - 6:52a nut City m Grove Clerk - MDT FL CA - 3313 Develop 3 Web PortaL - Meeting s Audio/R First Last Street Nam Nam Addre e e so Sand y Agenda Item ecordin g Public Access View Public Comment Reco rded Date I urgently request that you vote YES on the appeal of the tree removal Intended Decision This appeal seeks to overturn Intended Decision 26-087 and save a large, state - threatened Mahogany tree located in the city right-of-way at approximately 501 Northeast 55th Terrace. Although this tree is not in perfect condition, it remains a vital environmental asset that provides immense benefits to our neighborhood. Based on its significant size and maturity, it would take decades to replace the immense value of its canopy, trunk, and root system. Trees located within the public right-of-way represent a collective community benefit and should never be destroyed at the whim or complaint of a single neighbor. This case is especially troubling given that no environmental mitigation is being provided. This follows a disappointing pattern; approximately one year ago, the City removed another large mahogany tree that could have easily been trimmed and saved, PZ. 4 simply because a neighbor complained. Furthermore, the City has a well -documented #19233 history of failing to properly maintain its trees, white simultaneously causing significant Intende harm to them during standard ground maintenance. We must haft this destructive Jun 5910 d precedent and protect our shared canopy by focusing on preservation: Exaggerated 10 Mois NE Decisio Arborist Report: The arborist's report exaggerates the tree's hazards. Its flaws do not 2026 e 6th n warrant immediate, automatic destruction. Viable Mitigation Remedies: Instead of 3:49p Court Appeal removal, the City should implement standard structural remedies to address the neighbor's m - 501 safety concerns and safely monitor the tree over the next year. The Strangler Fig that MDT NE 55 started to grow on the tree should be removed, Neem oft should be provided to the area Ter with insects, the soft should be de -compacted, and the canopy should be trimmed. Procedural Posting Errors: The official notice sign for the intended decision was erroneously posted on the wrong tree, denying the community accurate transparency, and placing another large state -threatened Mahogany in jeopardy of being removed. Bypassed Oversight: This matter completely bypassed the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. Our public right-of-way trees belong to the whole community and deserve protection. Please vote YES on Mark Supino's appeal to protect this vital natural asset. I included two photos of the trees. Yes, FPL tree trimmers did a hack job on it. Yes, it isn't perfect, but it doesn't mean it must be chopped down. The entire tree is not just going to fall over. Cities elsewhere do everything possible go save their trees. Miami discards them Like they are disposable and easy to replace. They aren't. Thank you for your time and dedication to Miami's environment. PH. 2 670 #19239 Jun NE Accept 11 Final I walk by this project every day, and in my opinion, the road should remain open to the Andr Colta 69th 2026 Plat - public. There should be no gates, fences, or security guards restricting access. The entire es zos st 8:40a 3313 PRESC neighborhood is accessible to everyone, and the Prescott Mansions should be as well. m OTT 8 MDT ESTATE S 648 PH. 2 NE #19239 I'd like for the proposed private road to remain open to the public. The entire Jun 71st Accept neighborhood is accessible by everyone, which is what makes it such a special 11 Andr Osor Street Final community. There is no need for this exclusivity and removal of public access. It is what 2026 Plat - makes the neighborhood so connected and neighborly. Please adhere to the 2022 es io 7:36a Miam PRESC agreement with the Bayside Residents Association and keep the road public and i FL OTT accessible to aft neighbors. We do not want a mini belle meade island in bayside historic m 3313 ESTATE district. MDT 8 S First Last Street Reco Agenda Nam Nam Addre Item Public Comment rded e e ss Date PH. 2 700 NE #19239 Jun Accept 72nd Per the agreement with the BAYSIDE Residents Association as a condition of project 11 Final Migu Street approval this road is to be a a PUBLIC road in perpetuity not a private road with public 2026 el Seco miam Plat access... this action would carve out and piece meal key points that were negotiated and 7:24a PRESC i fl OTT agreed upon in 2022. Please hold developers to the 2022 agreement m 3313 MDT 8 ESTATE S PH. 2 #19239 Accept Please do not add a private dosed off street in our neighborhood. This is a departure from Jun 670 the plans and expectations during the approval process. Our neighborhood is filled with 11 Final Jona Kelte NE walkers and visitors from all over the district who enjoy the beauty of the bay and soon 2026 Plat - than y 69th the besty of the Prescott Mansion. Closing off the street is the wrong message and wilt 8:45a PRESC St all OTT divide the neighborhood and ultimately the city of Miami Thank you for protecting am citizens of Miami. MDT ESTATE S Please do not advance this agenda item. The pace of development on Miami is out of control and our natural resources are strained. Construction is not always a net improvement. It has consequences. This is a sensitive marine habitat. At what point do we 4130 look to improve the health of our city, rather than just look at it as an economic engine? RE. 3 Lybye #19189 At what point are the environmental effects (including noise and light pollution) going to be Jun r Ave, Ballot factored in to the city -planning decisions? At what point is long-term maintenance going to 11 Coco be addressed with anything other than a bond? This is getting a bit ridiculous. Just Katri Morri Questio 2026 nut because someone wants to build something somewhere does not mean that we have to na s n - 6:36a Grove do it. Sometimes it's more cost effective to have a little less to have to maintain. It may irFL Keginia not be as shiny, but a nice, quiet marina can be a better asset than a congested, loud, MDT 3313 LLC bustling party zone. We've catered to the glitzy continent for the past ten years. 3 Unfortunately, what it's brought us are rising rents, flooding, traffic and a $450 million dollar shortfall in public safety infrastructure. What are the additional public safety costs for this project? In short, I don't believe the benefits here outweigh the costs. Please vote no. PH. 2 781 #19239 NE Accept Jun 11 Mari Cab 70 St Final Please keep the proposed public road open to the public, accessible to all. Please adhere 2026 a arco Miam Plat - to the 2022 agreement with the Bayside Residents Association to keep the road public 7;45a s i PRESC and accessible to neighbors. m 3313 OTT 8 ESTATE MDT S PZ. 4 Please, please, please. Do not remove this Mahogany tree. All it needs is some proper 436 #19233 pruning. Some human has made this tree lopsided. Was it the abutting Neighbor? Was it Intende FPL? Coral Gables does not allow for anyone to touch a City owned tree. We need to Jun NE Gon 77th d learn a thing or two from them. There is a reason why Coral Gables has always been a 11 Mari Decisio high value and enviable city to live in. TREES give character to a community and a Home. 2026 zale Street a Rd n They give, they don't take away. And, architecture and TREES can coexist. Please send 6:54a Apt Appeal our City Arborist to perform the right maintenance on that tree. And, do not remove it. I m - 501 understand this wilt be withheld today and why I won't be going to City Hall this morning. MDT 10 NE 55 I wilt send our commissioners pictures from New Orleans, a City that truly values their Ter TREES. First Last Street Nam Nam Addre e e ss 920 Soni Desa NE a i 72nd Street Agenda Item Public Comment Regarding the Prescott development, it has come to the attention of the Bayside Residents Association and neighborhood at large that the original agreement approved by the Commission and the Association to have public access on the development's road is PH. 2 now being modified to a fully private road. Yet, in April, as the Bayside Residents #19239 Association attempted to meet with the developers to discuss concerns, a legal Accept representative for Prescott stated in an email to us that the "internal drive was approved Final as a private roadway platted with a public access easement." This meeting has been Plat - delayed by Prescott, meanwhile this agenda item popped up for this meeting without any PRESC mention by Prescott that they would be reneging on the original approved agreement or OTT their own statement to us in the April email. As a resident of Bayside and a board member ESTATE for the Bayside Residents Association, I object to this change. At the very least, there S should be a public easement to allow all of us to walk on a road that is in the middle of our own neighborhood. To eliminate this agreement is to break trust. Moreover, this change will greatly affect neighborhood cohesion and inclusion, essentially creating a hostile island in the midst of what should be a connected community. 668 PH. 2 NE #19239 70 Accept Street Final Mira Miam Ana nda i, Plat PRESC Florid OTT a ESTATE 3313 8 SR. 1 #19320 4130 Amend Lybye Code - r Ave, Chapter Katri Morri Coco 37 - nut Public na s Grove Urinatio FL n Or 3313 Defecat 3 ion Prohibit ed The developer of the Prescott Estates made an agreement with the Bayside Residents Association, approved by the City of Miami Commission in June 2022 that included a public access road in perpetuity as part of a covenant. The Bayside Residents Association has a copy of this agreement with plans that include the public access road. The attachments provided are confusing because they are calling it a private road with public access. What does this mean? Private or public? I am requesting that the agreement from 2022 be honored and that the road be accessible to the public without guard gates or any such deterrents to access. Additionally the buffer zone in Biscayne Bay should in no way cede these submerged lands in the Bay which are in the public trust. Reco rded Date Jun 11 2026 7:21a m MDT Jun 11 2026 6:18a m MDT This resolution seems punitive to me and wouldn't necessarily address the root cause. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and lived in San Francisco in the early nineties while attending San Francisco State University before the tech boom. We did not have people defecating in the streets. Sure, SF always had our share of wackos. I swear there's Jun a word vibration there. But it was not until the tech bros moved in and drove up prices that 11 we started to see the out and out pooping in the streets. Unlimited funds flooding your 2026 city is not always a boon. Don't you think it's odd that the tech bros got sick of San 7:04a Francisco and wanted to move to 'a more grateful city?' Could it be that San Franciscans m were getting fed up with the City handing everything to the tech industry and the tech MDT industry not reciprocating by also being stewards of the city they were making money hand over fist in? Stop giving everything away and start asking for civic support and public goods with each project. Just my take. End of Report