Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal - Law AnalysisScheider, Sylvia From: Thompson, Priscilla A. Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 11:30 AM To: Scheider, Sylvia; Arcia , Miriam Cc: Wascura, Rosemary; Davis, Yolanda Subject: FW: Items left out of the public record, file 03-0415 Ladies, please check to see if Mr. Cruz is correct and that these pages were inadvertently left out. Let me know what you find. When we scanned documents, do we check them to make sure that all pages were scanned before including document into Legistar? Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk (305) 250-5370 fax (305) 858-1610 Original Message From: Elvis Cruz [mailto:elviscruz@mac.com] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 10:08 AM To: Thompson, Priscilla A. Subject: Items left out of the public record, file 03-0415 Dear Ms. Thompson, I stopped by the City Clerk's office last Thursday to drop off 3 one page documents that where left out of the Legistar attachments to file # 03-0415, "Kubik". I left them with one of your assistants, Yoly. These items are 3 of 10 pages that were read into the public record at the City Commission meeting of May 6, 2004, and then turned in to the City Clerk at the meeting. For some reason 7 other pages were included in the attachments under the file name, "submittals", but these 3 were apparently inadvertently left out. You can verify their having been read as they are part of the verbatim transcript. I respectfully request that these 3 items be included in the public record for this item. Thank you very much, Elvis Cruz / Morningside Civic Association i 631 NE 57 Street Miami, Florida 33137-2361 305 754 1420 elviscruz@mac.com 2 CQMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 1702.2 ( M.U.S.P.) Testifying Neighbor: J.-2n h. THE LAW Section 1702.2 of the Miami Zoning Code dictates, in part, that "In order to properly address any impacts created by the proposed developments, additional data may be required by the city, through its boards, officers, agents, or the city commission, upon showing of need for proper decision making purposes". Moreover, section 1702.2.1 of the Code requires that a,..xeport be submitted, with specific exhibits, including the following: A "survey of the proposed area showing ,property -lines and ownership; existing features, including• streets, alleys, easements, utilities lines, existing land use„general topography, and other physical features" and Materials to demonstrate the relationship of these elements to the surrounding area's characteristics. ANALYSIS The architectural drawings and exhibits submitted by the applicant fail to fully detail and address the impacts created by the project. Few if any of the applicant's exhibits illustrate the project's impact and relationship within the neighborhood context in order to evaluate size, scale, context and compatibility. In this regard additional material, in the form of elevation drawings for ALL sides of the building are needed.' Specifically the applicant should provide a contextual sketch or detailed computer photo -image of the project showing the Biscayne Boulevard, 58th Street and NE 4th Court elevations of the proposed project within the as -built surroundings. These should include schematic elevations of the existing buildings and properties on both sides of the aforementioned streets, indicating the overall height, massing, window and door placement as well as significant architectural features, of the existing buildings. ' This point was made at the PAB hearing when Board member Parks stated that she could not adequately evaluate the project without proper additional elevations. COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 1703( M.U.S.P.) Testifying Neighbor: THE LAW Section 1703 of the Miami Zoning Code sets forth certain standards for the City Commission to consider, when evaluating a MUSP application; such standards include the following: ' Whether the development will have a favorable impact on the environment and natural resources of the city. ' Whether the development will adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. ANALYSIS Notwithstanding the lack of adequate documentation and materials, it is clear that the project, as submitted, fails to adequately address the above noted standards. In this regard, the proposed development will not have a favorable impact on the environment, and it will adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood, as the overall size, density, scale and orientation of the structure will envelop and overwhelm the more low scale character of the surrounding area. Specifically, the following is noted:. 1. The orientation of the proposed towers broadsides major public streets (Biscayne Blvd. and NE 58th Street) in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the established pattern of buildings. 2. In combination with the 10 story building to the immediate east, a large "canyon" effect will squeeze the narrow portion of Biscayne Blvd in the larger vicinity of the site, having an extremely negative impact on the pedestrian experience at the sidewalk level. 3. Large shadows will be cast over the single family homes in Morningside to the east, as well as Lemon City to the west. 4. The design of the run-on base portion of the project, which continues with no breaks around the entire block, fails to address the individual, low scale character of the existing architecture that defines Biscayne Blvd. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA ("SITE AND URBAN PLANNING") i7d v1 10(‘;dl'h Testifying Neighbor: THE LAW In accordance with Article 13 of the Miami Zoning Code, the subject project is required to be consistent with the Design Review Criteria in Section 1305.2. Under the Site and Urban Planning criteria, the project must ' respond to the physical contextual environment taking into consideration urban form and natural features; and • buildings on corner lots should be oriented to the._corner and public street fronts. ANALYSIS The orientation of the tower portions of the project broadside and overwhelm adjacent streets, sidewalks and neighborhoods. This totally contradicts the existing context and urban form. Secondly, the primary corners of the site (the southeast and northeast) have not been adequately developed, as the project has been oriented on a rigid north -south and east -west axis, which broadsides 2 major streets. Further, the existing, strong corner architecture at the northwest corner is proposed to be removed via the demolition of an architecturally and historically significant structure, i.e., the dance studio. The proposed siting and building orientation is wrong. In addition to broadsiding three (3) pedestrian streets and creating a "valley" along Biscayne Blvd, in relation to the existing 10 story structure to the east, the project will hover over and cast shadows on established, low scale residential areas to the north, east and west. Therefore, the project fails to comply with the Site and Urban Planning criteria listed in Sec. 1305.2 of the City Code.