Loading...
2022-10-06 Minutes1 MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 2022 6:30 PM 9900 BUILDING 1) CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM. 2) MOMENT OF SILENCE / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3) ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmember Alice Burch Councilmember Katia Saint Fleur arrived at 6:40 PM Councilmember Crystal Wagar Vice Mayor Daniel Marinberg Mayor Sandra Harris ALSO PRESENT: Village Attorneys Sarah Johnston and Chanae Wood Village Clerk Ysabely Rodriguez Village Manager Esmond Scott 4) ORDER OF BUSINESS 5) PRESENTATIONS 5.A PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BREAST CANCER AWARENESS MONTH. Mayor Harris read the proclamation in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month into the record. 5.B PRESENTATION BY THE BELLTOWER CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, LAKEESHA MORRIS- MOREAU, MSW, GPC Ms. Lakeisha Morris Moreau provided an update regarding her grant writing efforts and answered questions posed by the Village Council. 2 6) PUBLIC COMMENTS Roseny Augustin, Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator, from County Commissioner Hardemon’s Office introduced herself to the Village Council. Octavia Thomas from Representative Dotie Joseph’s Office introduced herself and provided a brief update. Alicia Mangham spoke about the comprehensive plan, specifically requesting that the three main properties mentioned throughout the comprehensive plan be reviewed and considered separately. Erin Halloran spoke about the Village revitalizing the downtown area. Darci Cohen spoke in support of downtown revitalization but expressed concerns regarding the unintended consequences associated with revitalization. Angela Attento echoed Ms. Cohen’s comments. Kristen Feuer expressed concerns with the comprehensive plan in its current form. Peter ? spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan as presented and asked for a traffic study. John Moore spoke in opposition to extending the moratorium and echoed Ms. Mangham’s comments. Liangy Calli spoke in support of working together in a sensible way to promote gradual growth. Mike Loffredo spoke about concerns regarding the prospective density of the Village based on the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Laura Reynolds offered a countywide perspective regarding the proposed comprehensive plan, speaking about the negative connotation that density has and asked the Village Council to think about the balance of the County. She further expressed support of the comprehensive plan. Giselle Kovac spoke about gradual development and growth and spoke in support of the comprehensive plan. Meike Espinoza spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan and spoke about the importance of civility on social media platforms. Marjorie Weber spoke about the costs associated with the aspirations of the comprehensive plan. William Quinlan spoke about housing affordability in Miami-Dade County and spoke in support of the comprehensive plan. Thomas Castellanos spoke in support of a modest increase in density and mixed-use development along NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard (near Publix). He further expressed support of the comprehensive plan. Carmen Renick expressed concerns with traffic as a result of surrounding development. She further spoke in support of tweaking the comprehensive plan and asked the Village Council to build trust with the community. 3 Carlos Canasi spoke in support of Lakeisha Morris’ efforts, applauded the number of women on the dais, spoke in support of the comprehensive plan amendment and advocated for restricting height, and narrowing the architectural style of homes. Sarah McSherry spoke about the lack of explanation with respect to why the proposed density was presented as such. She further spoke about a social media blurb posted by Vice Mayor Marinberg. Jesse Valinski spoke about the importance of maintaining the single-family home charm and lifestyle of Miami Shores Village and asked about the need for affordable housing. Janet Goodman thanked staff for posting the resident workshop presentation on the village website and asked for the resident workshop video to be posted on the Village website as well. She further asked staff to post the dates of the comprehensive plan revisions. Eli Bravo advocated for the right development for Miami Shores, spoke about the preservation of the Village's character and asked the Village council to listen to resident concerns. Maria McGuiness read her eComment into the record. Due to the volume of eComments, eComments were not read into the record; however, such comments have been attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7) CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Burch moved to approve the consent agenda and Vice Mayor Marinberg seconded the motion, which carried a 5-0 voice vote. 7.A APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 FIRST BUDGET HEARING (STAFF: VILLAGE CLERK). PASSED ON CONSENT. 7.B APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (STAFF: VILLAGE CLERK). PASSED ON CONSENT. 7.C APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 FINAL BUDGET HEARING MINUTES (STAFF: VILLAGE CLERK). PASSED ON CONSENT. 7.D APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (STAFF: VILLAGE CLERK). PASSED ON CONSENT. 7.E A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND RATIFYING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE DOCTORS CHARTER SCHOOL OF MIAMI SHORES (DCMS) FOR THE PLACEMENT OF 4 SCHOOL BASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (SBLEO) BY THE VILLAGE FOR THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR; AUTHORIZING VILLAGE OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE MOU; AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND BUDGETED FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: CHIEF OF POLICE). PASSED ON CONSENT. 7.F A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA; APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH BELLTOWER CONSULTING GROUP, LLC; AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: VILLAGE MANAGER). PASSED ON CONSENT. 7.G RECOMMENDATION OF RENEWAL - MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE EXTERNAL AUDITOR ENGAGEMENT (STAFF: FINANCE DIRECTOR). PASSED ON CONSENT. 8) VILLAGE BOARD APPOINTMENTS Mayor Harris opened the floor to all board applicants who were present and would like to introduce themselves to the Village Council. 8.A APPOINTMENTS TO THE RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (4 VACANCIES). Village Clerk Rodriguez provided a brief overview of the item and explained the electronic method of voting. Individual Councilmembers proceeded to cast votes. Upon the conclusion of the first round of voting, Village Clerk Rodriguez announced the respective votes of each Councilmember. John Ise Sandra Carro Gia Hagen Jessica Sallen Gayle Mercado Jessica Pluhar Jennifer Tinkler Claudia Genao Daniel Marinberg 1 1 1 1 Katia Saint Fleur 1 1 1 1 Sandra Harris 1 1 1 1 Crystal Wagar 1 1 1 1 Alice Burch 1 1 1 1 John Ise, Sandra Carro, Jessica Pluhar, and Gayle Mercado were appointed to the Recreation Advisory Committee. 8.B APPOINTMENTS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD (2 VACANCIES). 5 Village Clerk Rodriguez provided a brief overview of the item. Individual Councilmembers proceeded to cast votes. Upon the conclusion of the first round of voting, Village Clerk Rodriguez announced the respective votes of each Councilmember. Wesley Castellanos Seth Bramson Jeffrey Saadeh Katia Saint Fleur 1 1 Sandra Harris 1 1 Daniel Marinberg 1 1 Alice Burch 1 1 Crystal Wagar 1 1 Seth Bramson and Jeffrey Saadeh were appointed to the Historic Preservation Board. 8.C APPOINTMENT TO THE GENERAL EMPLOYEE PENSION BOARD (1 VACANCY). Village Clerk Rodriguez provided a brief overview of the item. Individual Councilmembers proceeded to cast votes. Upon the conclusion of the first round of voting, Village Clerk Rodriguez announced the respective votes of each Councilmember. Angela Dorney Mariana Gracia Katia Saint Fleur 1 Alice Burch 1 Sandra Harris 1 Daniel Marinberg 1 Crystal Wagar 1 Mariana Gracia was appointed to the General Employee Pension Board. 8.D APPOINTMENTS TO THE EDUCATION ADVISORY BOARD (4 VACANCIES). Village Clerk Rodriguez provided a brief overview of the item. Councilmember Burch asked the Village Council to consider appointing Antonio Netto, Michael Weber, and Kristen Feuer and re-advertising the additional vacancy due to the limited number of applications given that Ms. Hagen does not meet the residency requirement. Discussion ensued amongst the Village Council concerning the required number of votes to waive the residency requirement. The Village Council decided to proceed with board consideration as customary. Village Clerk Rodriguez, staff liaison to the Education Advisory Board (EAB), clarified the board is an eight-member body pursuant to the Village Code of Ordinances. Given the existing board composition, the board has faced challenges with meeting quorum requirements and tie votes. Therefore, it is the desire of the existing EAB to amend the ordinance that established the board to reflect a seven-member body. 6 Given the information provided by Village Clerk Rodriguez, there was discussion about appointing Mr. Antonio Netto, Ms. Kristen Feuer, and Mr. Michael Weber to the EAB during the pendency of the EAB ordinance amendment. Councilmember Burch moved to approve Antonio Netto, Kristen Feuer, and Michael Weber to the Education Advisory Board. Councilmember Saint Fleur seconded the motion, which carried a 5- 0 voice vote. 9) ORDINANCE(S) ON SECOND READING- PUBLIC HEARING 9.A AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING AND/FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS, AS ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04, FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS OR UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS THROUGH THE REQUIRED APPEAL PERIOD, WHICHEVER IS SOONER; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Village Clerk Rodriguez read the caption of the ordinance into the record. Ms. Claudia Hasbun, Planning & Zoning Director, provided a brief overview of the item. Mayor Harris opened the public hearing and subsequently closed it, seeing no one approach the lectern. Village Clerk Rodriguez read eComments pertaining to this item into the record. Responding to Vice Mayor Marinberg’s inquiry, Village Attorney Wood opined staff is able to informally meet with prospective applicants to answer questions and provide general information. However, there cannot be an official review or consideration by the Village Council during the moratorium. Councilmember Burch asked staff to put together a draft based on the feedback received at agenda review meetings, individual Councilmember feedback, and the resident workshops for Village Council and public review. Councilmember Burch moved to adopt the ordinance and Vice Mayor Marinberg seconded the motion which carried a 5-0 voice vote. Mayor Harris called for a brief intermission at 8:34 PM. Mayor Harris resumed the meeting at 8:40 PM. Mayor Harris requested the addition of Item 10C to the agenda to discuss the comprehensive plan. There was consensus amongst the Village Council. 10) DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 10.A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ACCEPTING THE AGE FRIENDLY ACTION PLAN (COUNCILMEMBER BURCH). Dr. Daniel Brady introduced the item, asking for Village Council support on the acceptance of the age friendly action plan. Dr. Brady indicated the next course of action is to devise an implementation plan. 7 Councilmember Burch thanked Elizabeth Keeley, Assistant to the Village Manager, for her assistance in providing composition assistance. Councilmember Burch moved to approve the Age-friendly Action Plan and Councilmember Wagar seconded the motion, which carried a 5-0 voice vote. 10.B DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING VILLAGE CLERK EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TERMS (SPONSORED BY: VICE MAYOR DANIEL MARINBERG/CO- SPONSORED: MAYOR SANDRA HARRIS). Vice Mayor Marinberg introduced the item, indicating the Village Clerk is one of three Charter Officers who does not have an employment agreement. Historically, the Village Manager and Village Attorney positions have had employment agreements. On the basis of equity and demonstrating the importance of the position in addition to the dedication the current Village Clerk, Ysabely Rodriguez, has exemplified, Vice Mayor Marinberg advocated for an employment agreement. Mayor Harris spoke in support of an employment agreement for the Village Clerk position, but expressed concerns regarding the proposed terms given the size of Miami Shores Village. Mayor Harris expressed her support for Ms. Rodriguez, but explained her views with respect to her role as a steward of public funds and the prospect of setting a precedent. Vice Mayor Marinberg spoke about how the proposed terms are within the current fiscal year’s budgetary grasp. For the benefit of the public, Councilmember Burch explained the Village Clerk position is one of the three charter officer positions that serve at the will of the Village Council. Councilmember Burch further explained that Ms. Rodriguez is the remaining Charter Officer with institutional knowledge and clarified the importance of having a direct employee with such capability. Councilmember Burch indicated two spreadsheets comprised of municipal clerk salaries and benefit packages within Miami-Dade County were presented to the Village Council. Councilmember Wagar echoed Councilmember Burch’s comments, explained how the Village Clerk position helps facilitate the business of the Village, and enumerated some of baseline responsibilities of the Village Clerk, including the fact that such position does not have support staff. Councilmember Wagar spoke to the level of professionalism displayed by Ms. Rodriguez and expressed her support for the proposed terms as presented. Councilmember Saint Fleur spoke to the Village Clerk’s responsibilities and the increasing cost of living in South Florida. Councilmember Saint Fleur understood Mayor Harris’ concerns with respect to setting a precedent with future Village Clerks, but further indicated the importance of the precedent the current Village Clerk has set with respect to her professionalism and work ethic. Mayor Harris spoke about how her opposition to the proposed term sheet is not personal. Councilmember Saint Fleur moved to direct the Village Attorney to draft an employment agreement between Village Clerk Ysabely Rodriguez and Miami Shores Village, subject to the proposed terms as presented and the inclusion of the Mayor’s signature line. Vice Mayor Marinberg seconded the motion, which carried a 4-1 voice vote. Mayor Harris voted in opposition. Village Clerk Rodriguez provided historical context regarding the evolution of the position and thanked the Village Council for their support and willingness to consider an employment agreement for the Village Clerk position for the first time in Village History. 8 10.C DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (This item was added to the agenda during the meeting). Councilmember Wagar opened the discussion, asking the Village Manager to share the feedback he received from residents during the resident workshop that was held on September 25, 2022. Village Manager Scott prefaced his statement by explaining the reason the resident workshop was held on a Sunday afternoon, indicating it was a decision that took into consideration Saturday and Sunday morning worshippers into account. The decision was further made in consultation with two local Rabbis with respect to the impending High Holiday. Mr. Scott asked Assistant Village Manager Tanya Wilson to provide insight into the resident feedback that was provided at such workshop. Ms. Wilson explained there was a great turnout and the general assessment indicated concerns regarding density, infrastructure impact, traffic, and future population growth based on estimated units. Councilmember Wagar spoke about the importance of correcting the inconsistencies and including resident feedback into the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Wagar proposed removing the mixed-use land use designation along the Biscayne Boulevard corridor, removing the Downtown mixed-use land designation, keeping the proposed mixed- use land use designation for the vacant land at Barry University, preserving single-family areas, and fixing the errors found in the Comprehensive Plan text and future land use map (FLUM). Vice Mayor Marinberg stated the approval of the Comprehensive Plan does not grant an applicant the right to build any structure. He further indicated there is a process that involves zoning code and planning department requirements, site plan review, concurrency analysis, and other factors. Councilmember Burch spoke about the importance of considering residential properties surrounding NE 2nd Avenue. Village Clerk Rodriguez asked the Village Council to state their recommended changes in the form of a motion for the purpose of clarity. Councilmember Wagar moved to remove the proposed mixed-use land use designation along the Biscayne corridor (reverting to commercial) and Vice Mayor Marinberg seconded the motion, which carried a 5-0 voice vote. (Comprehensive Plan text) Councilmember Wagar moved to keep the mixed-use land use designation for the vacant land located at Barry University, not to exceed a five-story height restriction and 30 dwelling units per acre. Vice Mayor Marinberg seconded the motion, which carried a 5-0 voice vote. Councilmember Wagar moved to remove the proposed mixed-use land use designation (in the Comprehensive Plan text and FLUM) in the Downtown District. Vice Mayor posed a friendly amendment, asking the Village Council to consider adding a four-story height restriction to the Downtown District. Vice Mayor Marinberg moved to keep the Downtown District land designation the same and add a four- story height limitation and Councilmember Saint Fleur seconded the motion which carried a 4-1 voice vote. Councilmember Burch voted in opposition. Vice Mayor Maringberg moved to not to allow for any gas uses on the NE 105 Street and Biscayne Boulevard property but to add the ability to have a mixed-use land use designation. Councilmember Saint Fleur seconded the motion, which carried a 4-1 voice vote. Councilmember Burch voted in opposition. 9 11) MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. 12) ATTORNEY'S REPORT No comments. 13) ANNOUNCEMENTS Village Clerk Rodriguez read the announcements. 14) VILLAGE COUNCIL COMMENTS No comments. 15) ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Village Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 PM. Village Council Meeting Time: 10-06-22 18:30 eComments Report Meetings Meeting Time Agenda Items Comments Support Oppose Neutral Village Council 10-06-22 18:30 31 59 27 25 1 Sentiments for All Meetings The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Village Council 10-06-22 18:30 Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral 5.B) PRESENTATION BY THE BELLTOWER CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, LAKEESHA MORRIS-MOREAU, MSW, GPC 4 2 2 0 6) PUBLIC COMMENTS 36 14 18 0 7.E) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND RATIFYING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE DOCTORS CHARTER SCHOOL OF MIAMI SHORES (DCMS) FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SCHOOL BASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (SBLEO) BY THE VILLAGE FOR THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR; AUTHORIZING VILLAGE OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE MOU; AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND BUDGETED FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: CHIEF OF POLICE) 1 1 0 0 7.F) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA; APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH BELLTOWER CONSULTING GROUP, LLC; AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: VILLAGE MANAGER) 1 0 1 0 8.B) APPOINTMENTS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD (2 VACANCIES). 6 6 0 0 9.A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING AND/FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS, AS ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04, FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS OR UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS THROUGH THE REQUIRED APPEAL PERIOD, WHICHEVER IS SOONER; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11 4 4 1 Sentiments for All Agenda Items The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown. Overall Sentiment Agenda Item: eComments for 5.B) PRESENTATION BY THE BELLTOWER CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, LAKEESHA MORRIS- MOREAU, MSW, GPC Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:43pm 10-06-22 Bonnie Bennett: As a long time resident and owner of residential and commercial property in Miami Shores, I oppose moving forward with the proposed expansion ordinance(s) at this time. Miami Shores Village does not appear to have been transparent enough on these issues to residents and owners. Based on what has been presented, this type of urban planning needs further research and data with full resident/owner participation and needs to be put up for referendum. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:12pm 10-06-22 Linda Schwartz . I live at 1304 NE 104 Street. I have lived in Miami Shores for over 50 years .I am against the proposed increase of density in the Comprehensive Plan 2025 amendments .I have seen what our neighboring communities are doing. The latest crazy thing that is happening is changing the zoning and comprehensive plan for the old White House Inn near Broad Causeway. The residents chose to live in Miami Shores because it is Beautiful, the neighbors are friendly and it is peaceful. I enjoy my daily walks. I can walk to vote, I can walk to shop I can walk to visit my neighbors if I choose. The last few years traffic has gotten worse. Try to head North on Biscayne Boulevard at any given time, We are down to 1 lane because of multiply buses lining up, Miami Shores trucks pruning, watering removing etc. the medium strip, If I can't head North I head to 6th Ave. You have Miami Country Day School, St. Rose of Lima and Miami Shores also causing us to 1 lane. several times a day. To increase density on 2nd Ave is crazy. What happens to parking for Restaurants, local events in the Theater, etc, At this time I strongly appose increasing the Density at all. Residents have enough trouble getting permits, inspections etc Please Concentrate on the things that we need immediately to maintain our Village Beautiful. Federico Hauri Location: Submitted At: 10:13pm 10-05-22 Let's improve the town. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 4:57pm 10-05-22 Dear Miami Shores community, We opened our small bakery on 96Th st in 2019. Which means that we were highly impacted by COVID. Now that we have an opportunity to bring life to our beloved Miami Shores, I certainly think that we should take that opportunity and make the best of it. I believe all of our businesses would highly benefit from it as we barely have any foot traffic right now, and unfortunately a lot of us are struggling. Sarahlú Confections fully supports developments that will result in a fuller, denser, and more diverse community for all of us! Agenda Item: eComments for 6) PUBLIC COMMENTS Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:25pm 10-06-22 Marilyn Charles I oppose the comprehensive plan proposed amendments that will forever change Miami Shores Village. I would like to ask the Council Members to listen to the voices of the mass majority of residents. Was not the purpose of the consulting firm to FIX the inconsistencies, then tell me why they aren't doing just that? Please do not vote in favor of this, keep the character of the Village and the projected comprehensive plan predominantly a single- family residential community. Thank you Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:24pm 10-06-22 Dear Council Members, My name is Silvia Clarke, and I live at 846 NE 97 Street. I am writing in opposition to the current Comp Plan recently presented. I have lived in Miami Shores for almost 28 years. When I moved here with my young family, I was a proponent of progress and supporting an economically thriving downtown. I still am a proponent of progress and change that will benefit the Village. However, the current plan doesn't provide guarantees to ensue progress while also preserving what makes Miami Shores special. In particular I'm concerned that there are no restrictions for building heights. I don't see a plan to manage the flow of traffic this population density plan is recommending. More importantly how this traffic will affect the safety of our community. As an avid runner, it scares me to think what will happen if we have 7000 more residents in our small community. In addition, there is talk of affordable housing. How will we guarantee, the proposed developments will offer affordable housing. What will happen to our property values? Too many questions unanswered and under these circumstances, I don't feel this is the best plan forward. Respectfully, Silvia Clarke Lynn Marinello Franzosa Location: Submitted At: 3:19pm 10-06-22 As a long time Miami Shores Villager, I strongly oppose the Comprehensive Plan that is being considered. This Plan undermines everything the Village stands for. We are a small single family home community, nestled between some very large, poorly run cities. We cannot afford to allow the possibility of the density growth that will be permitted in this Plan. We do not have the infrastructure to support that kind of growth. Traffic on all major thoroughfares in our village causes major congestion during peak commuting hours and has already begun spilling over on the side streets, where we all walk, ride, and enjoy conversing with our neighbors. Additionally, we have had auto and pedestrian fatalities due to the volume of trips through our Village. We cannot afford to lose another life in order to gain more residential units (nearly 70% more, which is truly unsustainable). This Comprehensive Plan will not improve the life of those in our Village; in fact, it will greatly diminish our sense of community, feeling of safety, and most likely, reduce our property values. I strongly urge you to oppose this Plan at all cost! Sincerely, Lynn Franzosa Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:14pm 10-06-22 I oppose the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Sharon Thompson Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:14pm 10-06-22 Good evening. My name is Kim Flower, and I am a resident at 301 NE 98th Street. I am also a business owner in downtown Miami Shores. While most council meetings are scheduled when we are open, I have watched and listened very carefully to the opinions surrounding the proposed changes to our Comprehensive plan and FLUM. The opponents are LOUD. All I hear is the same mantra over and over “Don’t change the character of our downtown!” I challenge you – what character? Is it the vacant storefronts you like or the disproportionate amount of insurance companies and doctor’s offices you like? Is it the poor lighting, sad landscaping, and lack of seating? Downtown is DEVOID of character. Quite frankly, we are lucky to have the handful of independent businesses we have. They have seen a potential in Miami Shores and have invested a lot of money to open here but, you are limiting their ability to thrive. Added density is needed if we are truly going to create a quaint, vibrant downtown. Miami Shores residents claim they want a thriving downtown but, aside from a handful, they do not support consistently and in a meaningful way. This is most clearly seen by the attendance at the Farmer’s Market. Most of the residents who are opposed to this idea of growth do not support our downtown. We should all be alarmed that one of our biggest restaurants closed before its 3rd anniversary! If we do not allow our council to make choices in the interest of our merchants, then the few independently owned businesses will start to shut one by one. Investors will notice and stay away. Please, I implore everyone to trust that while change is difficult, it is not all bad. Density is not a dirty word, and we will need a committee in place to make sure that the development is thoughtful and well planned. Passing the comprehensive plan is only step one. There is a LOT of work to do to improve downtown. I just hope that our existing merchants can hang on that long! Thank you. Linda Mennes Location: Submitted At: 2:48pm 10-06-22 I live in Miami Shores and raised my children here because I value the family oriented “village” that we have. The updated Comprehensive Plan would change that. With the proposed multi family sites along with no stated height restrictions, the population could potentially be increased by 70%, around 7000 people. Miami Shores would no longer be the “hidden gem” that we are often called. It would become just another overcrowded, traffic congested city. This is why I strongly oppose the proposed Comprehensive Plan. John Ise Location: Submitted At: 2:31pm 10-06-22 I write in conditional support for the Comp Plan. I believe that the proposed changes, on whole, represent a real improvement over previous flawed Comp Plan. But I would encourage Council to consider adding a 3-story height limit into plan as way to temper density concerns residents have expressed. I particularly endorse the Barry University effort to transform their vacant parcels, which now stand as desolate magnets for crime and illegal dumping on the western fringes of the Village, into something vastly better for the broader community. It is a shame...it is a shame...it is a shame that a Village Police Officer (or teacher...or Barry employee...or Publix clerk) cannot afford to live in the community they serve. The Barry proposal can be crafted to provide for desperately needed housing opportunities for Barry personnel, teachers, Village employees, and the like. This class of residents/occupations make for excellent citizens and neighbors. It also affords a once-in- a-lifetime opportunity to glean public benefits for the Doctor's Charter School while addressing the recreational/greenspace needs of the Village's western residents. Barry is a long-standing community asset and important neighbor to the Miami Shores Village (and the greater Miami-Dade community). Their long-term well-being is vital to the Village and merit our support. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:31pm 10-06-22 My name is Robert Menge and I live at 1102 NE 105th Street Miami Shores Florida. I believe that the residents have a right to review the latest draft of the comprehensive plan now before the vote on October 18th. The Village Council and the residents also need to review the comments made at the Barry University Comprehensive Plan Meeting. The presentation is posted, but none of the comments made by the residents are included or posted. What was the point of having the meeting? Why do Council members want to increase density without public comments? The latest draft version of the Comp plan update that will be voted on, and the comments from the over 100 residents need to be posted online at the website, with a hard copy available for review at City Hall, and the library now, not next week or just before the vote. There may be legal issues, regarding the meeting location, lack of residents notice of the meeting. What is the rush? We do not have any legal state, County deadline that prevents residents input into this comp review and revision, thank you. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:24pm 10-06-22 Hi, my name is Christine O’Neil & have been a resident here in Miami Shores for 29 years. I just want to voice my opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan that has been designed to increase the population by a large amount & increase multi unit buildings with no restrictions on height. This has always been a family friendly community & village. There are plenty of other areas in Dade county that have condos, apartments & multiuse spaces that people can move to. I’d prefer not to see that type of further development here in Miami Shores. Thank you. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:22pm 10-06-22 Maria McGuinness. I oppose the Comprehensive Plan proposed amendments that will destroy Miami Shores’ predominantly single-family residential character, decrease our quality of life, and decrease our property values. At the 9/25 Workshop, the Village Manager assured 70+ residents who attended that he “hears us” and “cares.” Actions speak louder than words. It is “transparent” that the Village staff, consultants and council members are disregarding Florida law and going through the motions as to public input in this process. Despite over 80 minutes of public oral or written comments and questions on 7/19 & 9/25, not one of the resident-requested changes or concerns has been genuinely considered, resolved to the residents’ benefit, or included in the proposed amendments. Not one. From July 13th to Oct. 6th, there are no data, surveys and/or studies to justify the over 70% increase in mixed use density and population in this nearly built-out, three-square mile, 90-year-old single family residential Village. Miami Shores’ population grew about 10% between the 2010 and 2020 Census (about 1,000 new residents). We have 11,566 residents. No data, surveys or studies exist to determine the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth or the projected permanent or seasonal population for the 20- year plan. Incentivizing development of 2,788 dwelling units and adding over 8,300 new residents in three mixed use areas is neither needed nor justified. Also, the superficial concurrency analysis presented at the 9/25 workshop included the golf course to satisfy the 1.25 acres per 1,000 residents level of service for parks and recreation knowing that the public can’t use it as a park except for July 4th fireworks. The residents need answers to the following questions: (1) Where’s the data to support the over 70% increase in density and population for a 20-year plan? (2) How does the over 70% increase in density and population benefit the residents? and (3) Where are the ten additional acres of park and recreation land that are needed for 8,300 new residents? I urge this Council to remember that you serve the public, not yourselves. The consultant was hired to fix inconsistencies not re-write our Comp Plan and destroy our Village. Answer the residents’ questions before you vote on Oct. 18th. Do what’s right and vote against the proposed amendments. Thank you. Charles Martin Mennes Location: Submitted At: 2:21pm 10-06-22 I am not in favor of the density increase associated with the updated Comprehensive Plan. I would like to have this agenda item state that the voting on a Plan would be extended to June of 2023 . This date would enable the residents a chance to vote and select Council members with the same opinion as the residents of Miami Shores. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:20pm 10-06-22 Karen S. and Ricardo Alvarez. 26 year residents of Miami Shores. We don’t agree with any of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. We feel like the residents are being bamboozled. The unsupported 70% increase in density and population will destroy the predominantly single-family residential character of Miami Shores and will destroy our quiet use and enjoyment of our property; increase traffic, pollution, and crime; and decrease our property values. The Comprehensive Plan is supposed to reflect the residents’ vision of the future development of our Village. As part of the amendment process, the residents are entitled to be heard, have their questions answered, and their concerns addressed and meaningfully considered by the Council before you vote. How do the proposed amendments benefit the residents? If the increased density and population don’t benefit the residents, who is benefitting? How do you justify almost doubling the density and population of our small Village? How will the Village fund the additional public works employees and equipment, police, roads, schools and parks that such a drastic increase in density will cause? You represent us, not yourselves. Please listen to the residents, answer our questions, and carefully consider our concerns and proposed alternatives. Please don’t increase density and destroy our quaint Village. Simply fix the identified errors and inconsistencies in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and 2018 Future Land Use Map as you originally represented when you undertook this review. Vote “no” on the revised proposed amendments on October 18th. Thank you. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:06pm 10-06-22 My name is Cristina Butler. Lifetime resident of Miami Shores. My husband and I are now raising our two daughters here and couldn’t be happier. We live in central Shores and have come to value the walkability of the neighborhood. Breakfast at Tinta, an afternoon walk to the library for a book reading, evening stroll to Flight for a glass of wine. The quality of our life has improved tremendously due to the fact that we do not have to get in the car and drive somewhere to enjoy our free time together as a family. I hope to see more shops and eateries in our future to accommodate a thriving downtown. If done properly and respectfully, I am hopeful that this will benefit all residents of our village. I thank you all for your service and commitment to Miami Shores. David Gerhardt Location: Submitted At: 2:05pm 10-06-22 I have been a resident of Miami Shores for 53 years, and I strongly oppose the proposed drastic amendments to the comprehensive plan, which greatly exceed the original task of merely correcting some grammatical errors and internal inconsistencies. Instead, we are faced with a massive increase in density consisting of numerous new dwelling units--1,600 on US 1, 1,000 near Barry, and 300 downtown--that will not only result in an 80% population explosion, but it will also destroy the character and charm of our Village Beautiful. As expressed by many residents at the recent workshop, we do not want to become another Brickell. I have not heard of even one resident supporting this plan. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Village Council vote no. Sarah Vahan Location: Submitted At: 1:33pm 10-06-22 As a small business owner in the downtown corridor, I would welcome responsible development of the business district. Our downtown should be vibrant, charming, and exciting! In its current state, it is stuck in decades passed, and simply cannot compete with surrounding neighborhoods (little river) (design district). When Pebble & Vine opened five years ago, we hoped to see the growth and potential we believed would come to the village, and we have been promised time and time again. Yet, there are boarded up windows, unappealing vacant spaces, and outdated buildings among other eyesores up and down 2nd Ave. This is not reflective of the beautiful community we live in. I believe a dynamic downtown would not only ensure our local business stay, but also attract more of the businesses that everyone wants to see in the Shores. If change and progress does not come to the business district, we will lose the businesses that we all love. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 12:57pm 10-06-22 I would support this measure if there could be some concession to the large number of additional residents being proposed. Most of the plan makes sense, but these numbers are unreasonable. Understood that there could be some eventual decrease, but I believe in order for residents to support, we need to see some sort of negotiation and good will on behalf of the people proposing this. Brandon Spirk Location: Submitted At: 12:49pm 10-06-22 I oppose any increased density until the Village releases the actual proposed amendment with sufficient time to review and comment on. workshops thus far have not identified the specifics of what is to be proposed, rather they have merely explained challenges and possible options. I’m specifically opposed to reducing minimum lot sizes as a solution for non-conformity as that will allow for subdivisions of lots that currently are only allowed one dwelling and will have a deleterious affect on the character of our community. With regard to overall density increases, it isn’t clear the degree of increase proposed, and no comprehensive traffic study by a reputable traffic engineer has been conducted only estimates by the planners. Therefore I would only support the smallest of increases without such comprehensive study. Finally, there should be no rush to include maximum increases into one single amendment. We can and should proceed methodically over a period of future amendments while evaluating affects as we go; the maintenance of neighborhood character mandates a slow methodical approach. Carl Paulsen Jr. Location: Submitted At: 12:37pm 10-06-22 Miami Shores voters elect councils to protect the long-term interests of our residents. The Village was planned and established as a single-family residential community and has remained so during rapid urban growth at our boarders. The comprehensive plan under consideration to correct zoning inconsistencies is not a license to increase Village population density and forevermore alter the very character of our way of life we love so dearly. We need thoughtful and measured improvement while correcting obvious errors, not (emphasis added) an expansion plan that curiously serves commercial or ideological interest of a few temporary village officials. I stand firmly in opposition and encourage others Miami Shores residents likewise. CJP- Third Generation Miami Shores Resident. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 10:44am 10-06-22 Good evening, this is Carol Eannace Respondek, 1162 NE 105 Street. Regarding the current proposed Comp Plan, I like the idea of mixed use in the areas proposed, but I think that the density being suggested is too much, especially all at once. In my opinion, this is neither modest nor lovely. I am concerned that this huge new growth when built out will forever change the character of the Village, add to the already crazy traffic, tax our infrastructure, and Village staff. If you must propose an increase in density, please do it incrementally or substantially smaller. Really, this Comp Plan as I initially understood it, was just required to address the mistakes in previous comp plans. I hope all Council Members will listen to the overwhelming voices of the residents, especially those that live near these proposed increased density areas and lessen the density suggested. If you want densities as large as what you are specifying now - it should go to a referendum. Thank you. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:42am 10-06-22 Please do not increase the housing density of Miami Shores. Mrs Roman 1310 NE 101 St Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:13am 10-06-22 My name is Anne-Camille Hersh. I am opposed to the new development plan of Miami Shores. The reason our community is so special is because we are yet a manageable group of families who care about its surroundings, community, education for our children and safety. What is being proposed is an inorganic growth to our town (2/3 increase in habitants) and we are not ready to take such step. We need to first focus on the steady growth of our downtown who has businesses who are struggling enough to survive. The idea of adding spread out areas of new businesses in MS will not help creating an organic vibrant downtown, people will need to drive from one point to the other creating congestion and against environmental friendly practices we are all trying to push forward. Additionally, the current infrastructures (police department, public parks for children, Publix...) do not allow for more residents who already have to drive to surrounding areas to use those amenities. Finally, current home values will decrease significantly for those owners next to those new areas. We invested in our properties with a certain philosophy/life style in mind which will now change. Again, I am in opposition of this new comprehensive plan for Miami Shores and I strongly urge our representatives to think it through further. Thank you, Cathleen Charles Location: Submitted At: 10:56pm 10-05-22 I wholeheartedly oppose the 70% increase in density that has no data to support it after sacrificing my Sunday afternoon Sept. 25, at the Comp. plan workshop. Clearly the density increase doesn’t benefit the residents. I ask who does it benefit? council members? village staff/employees? Please share how this benefits each of you Council Members and Village Manager? Why is the Vice mayor asking a group of residents to support the density increase? Please focus on the original task “FIX THE INCONSISTENCIES”. That is what needs to be corrected and is time sensitive. If this is a comp plan is to project 20 years then we need to slow down and review data that will impact Miami Shores Village forever! Why can’t the zoning be done with the Comp plan? It makes no sense to push through a comp plan and not know the height restrictions of the buildings. We don’t want to be a Coconut Grove or Coral Gables! Thank you, Cathleen Charles Guest User Location: Submitted At: 10:29pm 10-05-22 Good Evening: My name is Elan Hersh and I am a resident of Miami Shores. I write in opposition to MSV's Comprehensive Development Plan, which as I understand it, would add approximately 2500+ residential units to our village, potentially resulting in more than 7,250 additional inhabitants to a city of around 11,000 people. This would be a 65% increase to our population. Additionally, I am told that a certain percentage of these apartments would be allocated for low-income housing. I am also told that the need to add so many new units is to allow our downtown to thrive. I disagree. This plan is ill-advised and completely unnecessary. This plan is designed to benefit the commercial and political interests of its supporters, NOT the residents of Miami Shores, who prefer the organic growth of our beautiful city. If this plan were to be passed, MSV residents would face increased congestion, noise and pollution, as well as inadequate infrastructure and resources needed to accommodate a 65% increase in our population. Furthermore, this would adversely impact the owners of homes immediately surrounding these large apartment complexes, who moved to MSV for peace and tranquility. I strongly oppose the MSV Comprehensive Development plan and know scores of other MSV residents who also oppose this plan. This community of concerned citizens will be present en masse on October 18 to voice our opposition to this ill-advised initiative. santiago martinez Location: Submitted At: 10:24pm 10-05-22 I live at 260 NE 95Th Street on the corner of NE 2nd and 95 so this is very close to home, literally. Having a vibrant downtown is very important to me and for home values for the neighborhood. The economics of increasing the number of bars/restaurants, theatres, etc does not work for any business owner unless there is sufficient density. More apartments and people will be good for the growth of downtown to support more businesses which is currently not feasible and the current weak downtown is proof. The fear of congestion and traffic is overblown and assumes that everybody is in their cars at the same time. Ironically, more density makes downtown more vibrant and walkable which reduces the need to get in cars and go somewhere else. Federico Hauri Location: Submitted At: 10:18pm 10-05-22 Let's improve our downtown Miami Shores. There's no reason it cant' be thriving like a Coconut Grove or Coral gables. Melissa Mazzitelli Location: Submitted At: 9:11pm 10-05-22 Please do not approve any plan that would allow such a jarring overhaul of our village's structure. We are a village of about 3000 households with a low population density. As it is, there are concerns about sewer access, traffic congestion and speeding on our roads, and access to amenities like aftercare at the community center. Nearly doubling the number of households would add a significant number of new residents, increasing our population density and substantially burdening our local services and amenities. Do not let Miami Shores become just another example of urban sprawl. If you want to develop our downtown businesses, promote them. Create a friend referral incentive or something that will encourage our residents to share their love of our local treasures with others. Our village is part of a larger community and we can do other things (such as creating a downtown butterfly haven or other attraction that is reflective of our community) to bring people to our corner of paradise without ruining it. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:31pm 10-05-22 Randal Gottlieb I am opposed to the Comp Plan due to the negative impact on our village including traffic, pollution, crime, safety issues, and increased taxes. Our town has a “village vibe” that has existed for many years and it attracts many people to our community. Please vote AGAINST this proposal for the sake of our community. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 7:55pm 10-05-22 I fully agree that it would be a great idea to pursue this plan as it would enliven our Downtown area. David Baquerizo Location: Submitted At: 7:09pm 10-05-22 I support this initiative Guest User Location: Submitted At: 6:42pm 10-05-22 I fully support approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The downtown district is in much need of an update. Increased density along the main corridor of NE 2nd Ave will help decrease tax rates by increasing the tax base, and providing more affordable housing to support workers at local businesses. Caroline Mitchum Location: Submitted At: 6:38pm 10-05-22 I strongly oppose this “plan”, and it really should be a referendum, not a five person vote determining the future of our village. The plan as written almost doubles the population of Miami shores drastically increasing pollution, traffic, crime etc. This will lead to more government, infrastructure, and services effectively negating any tax benefit derived from a larger base. This plan seeks to enrich developers, not the MSV residents. This is a threat to the quality of life we currently enjoy. A money grab with no consideration given to the fact we live here because we like the calm, quiet, family friendly Shores! A responsible plan with scaled back density, height restrictions for mixed use buildings, and an infrastructure map would be considered. Jessica Scheeler Location: Submitted At: 5:57pm 10-05-22 I support the Comp plan in order to improve what Miami Shores has to offer its residences. I do think there needs to be a limit on the number of units that can be added so as not to fully change the character of our beautiful village. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 5:45pm 10-05-22 While the project might take few years to start developing, we need to inject a new life into our downtown. It looks deteriorated as it is now. As long as street expansion, Public parking etc are conserved, and mult-family buildings are limited to mid rise heights and on main boulevards, this is a great Nancy Valdes Location: Submitted At: 5:29pm 10-05-22 I fully support the proposed addition of reasonable residential density to our downtown. Frankly, we are stagnant, and our downtown appears blighted. I would submit that the state of our downtown, stuck in the beige utilitarian 1970's, has an impact on our property values. It's the outdated, drab and unwelcoming continuation of an otherwise up and coming area. It's blocks of wasted potential and a reminder that this was once a thriving area with a movie theater, shops and businesses. Our few businesses in the area suffer from limited foot traffic and would greatly benefit from additional residents and the vibrancy that would come with them. Additional residents to dine in MS restaurants, push baby carriages around the downtown area, attend Pilates classes and pay taxes! In the past few days there has been a hue and cry on social media. The same citizens that decry the state of our downtown will also express concern that new residents will vote in elections, drive cars, and send kids to school, and yes, all of those things come with new tax dollars. Our millage rate is the 3rd highest in the county.... how much would those new residents add to our coffers? Miami Shores cannot be perpetually stuck in 1950 (like the MS Theater) and new people would not devalue our homes simply by existing. This change has started. We are welcoming families from all over the country. Our home values have sky-rocketed not because of our stagnation, but in spite of it. A vibrant downtown is what we need to enhance our quality of life. We can't stay stuck in the past, and it would be folly to try. Congratulations to the new council and Godspeed on this endeavor. Thank You for having the conviction to thoughtfully consider this proposal. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 4:46pm 10-05-22 My name is Jeffrey Saadeh and I reside at 261 NE 102nd Ave I support the acceptance of the proposed Village Comp plan. I believe this plan will -Correct serious issues with the previous Comp Plan which made many properties in the village non-conforming (including mine) -Help create a thriving and vibrant downtown corridor around 2nd Avenue which is not dependent on one or two businesses and helps eliminate closed storefronts -Allow for the development of multi-family housing in three key areas including empty land along the expressway owned by Barry University and not suitable for single family housing -Help alleviate critical affordable housing shortages in the village -Increase tax revenues which can support new and improved infrastructure projects -Preserve the single-family home character of the majority of the Village Thank you! Jeffrey Saadeh Guest User Location: Submitted At: 4:24pm 10-05-22 Im in favor of growth and I support the cause Agenda Item: eComments for 7.E) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND RATIFYING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE DOCTORS CHARTER SCHOOL OF MIAMI SHORES (DCMS) FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SCHOOL BASED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS (SBLEO) BY THE VILLAGE FOR THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR; AUTHORIZING VILLAGE OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE MOU; AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND BUDGETED FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF RECITALS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: CHIEF OF POLICE) Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:50am 10-06-22 Aaaaa Agenda Item: eComments for 7.F) A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA; APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH BELLTOWER CONSULTING GROUP, LLC; AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000; PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: VILLAGE MANAGER) Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 6:27pm 10-05-22 I am Trina Krispin, and I do oppose the Comp plan in its entirety Agenda Item: eComments for 8.B) APPOINTMENTS TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD (2 VACANCIES). Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:21pm 10-05-22 John Ruark; 9909 NE 4th Ave Rd. I support Jeffrey Sadeeh for this position because if his experience in This area and other communities in which he lived, and because of his recent extensive activity and conducting tours of mid century modern homes in the Miami Shores area. He is a real asset to our community and will help Us move forward and recognizing the uniqueness of the architecture of Miami Shores Guest User Location: Submitted At: 5:20pm 10-05-22 Jeffrey Saadeh. He is supremely qualified to serve. His love and dedication to historic preservation is known to many in our community. He is very knowledgeable about all types of architecture and has renovated historic homes magnificently. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 5:05pm 10-05-22 I am Tim Crutchfield, and I urge the Counsel to select Jeffrey Saadeh to be a member of the Historic Preservation Board. Jeffry has extensive knowledge and first-hand experience regarding historic preservation that would be of great value to the Shores. I had the great pleasure of going on the "Martinis & Modernism" tour that he co-chaired here in the Village. He was the emcee for the tour, and he demonstrated a great depth of knowledge about and appreciation for the wonderful midcentury homes we have in the Shores. His knowledge and appreciation for historic preservation is further demonstrated by the fantastic job he and his husband, Mickey, did renovating their 1925 Mediterranean Revival home. Miami Shores would greatly benefit from his knowledge, experience, enthusiasm and dedication. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Jerry Bell Location: Submitted At: 4:25pm 10-05-22 I strongly support Jeffrey Saadeh’s nomination to the Historic Preservation Board. I recently participated in a tour he helped coordinate of MiMo architecture in the Village, and his subject matter expertise, enthusiasm and collaborative spirit will be a great asset to the Board and Village. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 4:24pm 10-05-22 Jeffrey Saadeh. MSV has received a great gift in this gentleman of unquestionable qualifications, conciliatory character and demonstrated passion for our community. I know he will be an asset to the MSVHPB, so I wholeheartedly support him. Patrizia Bonaduce Location: Submitted At: 3:34pm 10-05-22 Dear Village Council Members: I support the candidate Jeffrey Saadeh to be appointed for the Historic Preservation Board. Jeffrey' strong knowledge and commitment to preserve Miami Shores history and architecture has been proved in the past 3 years, not only renovating himself to perfection his Shoreland home, but also with his volunteer collaboration during the Historic Preservation month's activities in the Village. I strongly believe Jeffrey will be an asset to the Board for his great personality and vast experience in this field. Please elect Jeffrey Saadeh ! Thank you so very much. Agenda Item: eComments for 9.A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING AND/FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS, AS ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04, FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS OR UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS THROUGH THE REQUIRED APPEAL PERIOD, WHICHEVER IS SOONER; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:27pm 10-06-22 I, Eloy Paredes, owner of a single family home in MS completely oppose this preposterous comprehensive plan that has been done without the consultation of the owners in the Shores. Every single person I spoke to about just found out through some neighbors. It does not bring us any benefits. Mary Benton Location: Submitted At: 3:07pm 10-06-22 I support a moratorium as stated above. I understand that our county has a real housing crunch. I also understand that our village has areas for additional housing. However, there are two things that are top of my list: maintaining the character of our village; and addressing the other crisis: climate change and sea level rise. I would not support any plan that envisions only additional housing, without adding more green space that allows native flora and fauna to thrive. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:03pm 10-06-22 Progress on this front is key. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:32pm 10-06-22 My name is Mary Killeen and I vehemently oppose the plan to pave over our beautiful village. While I think Second Avenue should continue to grow at a reasonable pace we do not need to become South Miami or Miami Lakes. We are a bedroom community in a large metropolis and there is nothing wrong with that. We are already feeling growing pains, traffic has gotten steadily worse and crime is still a huge problem. Approving this plan would destroy what makes Miami Shores the special place it is! Thank you Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:22pm 10-06-22 My name is Bernadette Lopez and I am a Miami Shores resident and homeowner. Change is hard but necessary. I do not want to see condo towers lining NE 2nd avenue, or a bunch of chain stores, but I do think it is time it evolves into something better. Frankly, the density numbers I have seen are simply too high to make this palatable to the community. If that isn't reconsidered, and lowered, I don't see how we get anywhere. However, the dumpy office buildings and empty storefronts need to be more. I would like to see the council move forward responsibly with an emphasis on moderate growth and independent businesses. Multifamily housing is just a fact of our existence and it all can't be NIMBY. Frankly, the existing landlords are pretty awful for the community and maybe if they could just sell their properties and get out, we would all be better off. I am against extending the moratorium. Let's move forward. Janet Davis Location: Submitted At: 11:46am 10-06-22 I want to make a comment about effects of the proposed FLUM on the 95% of the Shores that is single-family residential. A moratorium is appropriate on passing a land use plan that could increase density in 100% of the Shores. Let me show you how. The rejected 2018 Comprehensive Plan specified a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre). In the April workshop, the CGA consultants stated this was “changed to cater to the large lots”. I am surprised that professionals couldn’t see that 2 - 5 DU/acre is a standard description of densities exactly like the single-family residential areas of Miami Shores. I think “2.5” is a typo for “2 - 5”: A period was exchanged for a hyphen. 2-5 DU/acre matches well with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan density of up to 6 DU/acre (Policy 1.6.1). https://fldeo.my.salesforce-sites.com/papers/FloridaPapers During the September workshop, the consultants presented maps that distort land use (slides 15 and 16). They showed PLAT maps, which are used in initial subdivision. Appropriate maps would be County PARCEL maps of how the land was used and is now taxed. I compared their plat maps to the 2022 parcel map https://koordinates.com/layer/97871-miami-dade-count-fl- property-parcels/. On the two blocks closest to my house, the plat maps show 11 lots of <7500 sq ft vs. 0 on the parcel map. On the plat map, there are 0 lots of >17,424, but on the parcel map, there are 3. Average lot size is about 12,000 sq ft, for a density of 4 DU/acre. One of the other maps they didn’t show is the MSV zoning map, which accurately depicts the built-out residential lot sizes and protects all the small lot holders. It tells the true story of our community, not what developers proposed on 1950-60’s plat maps. Just as the consultants put spin on a typo to suggest that the Shores was “catering to large lots” and used misleading maps as evidence, let me put a spin on their recommendations: it looks the FLUM plan may be “catering to developers” to allow eventual subdivision of the single-family residential areas to accommodate 10 DU/acres, that is, duplexes and townhouses. This is a separate issue from the mixed land use areas, which is also complex. When the consultants and the Village administration tell us that the single-family residential areas are not affected, what they really mean is – not yet. Janet Davis Location: Submitted At: 11:46am 10-06-22 I want to make a comment about effects of the proposed FLUM on the 95% of the Shores that is single-family residential. A moratorium is appropriate on passing a land use plan that could increase density in 100% of the Shores. Let me show you how. The rejected 2018 Comprehensive Plan specified a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre (DU/acre). In the April workshop, the CGA consultants stated this was “changed to cater to the large lots”. I am surprised that professionals couldn’t see that 2 - 5 DU/acre is a standard description of densities exactly like the single-family residential areas of Miami Shores. I think “2.5” is a typo for “2 - 5”: A period was exchanged for a hyphen. 2-5 DU/acre matches well with the 1993 Comprehensive Plan density of up to 6 DU/acre (Policy 1.6.1). https://fldeo.my.salesforce-sites.com/papers/FloridaPapers During the September workshop, the consultants presented maps that distort land use (slides 15 and 16). They showed PLAT maps, which are used in initial subdivision. Appropriate maps would be County PARCEL maps of how the land was used and is now taxed. I compared their plat maps to the 2022 parcel map https://koordinates.com/layer/97871-miami-dade-count-fl- property-parcels/. On the two blocks closest to my house, the plat maps show 11 lots of <7500 sq ft vs. 0 on the parcel map. On the plat map, there are 0 lots of >17,424, but on the parcel map, there are 3. Average lot size is about 12,000 sq ft, for a density of 4 DU/acre. One of the other maps they didn’t show is the MSV zoning map, which accurately depicts the built-out residential lot sizes and protects all the small lot holders. It tells the true story of our community, not what developers proposed on 1950-60’s plat maps. Just as the consultants put spin on a typo to suggest that the Shores was “catering to large lots” and used misleading maps as evidence, let me put a spin on their recommendations: it looks the FLUM plan may be “catering to developers” to allow eventual subdivision of the single-family residential areas to accommodate 10 DU/acres, that is, duplexes and townhouses. This is a separate issue from the mixed land use areas, which is also complex. When the consultants and the Village administration tell us that the single-family residential areas are not affected, what they really mean is – not yet. Dana Sherman Location: Submitted At: 9:47am 10-06-22 I am against rezoning. We do not have the infrastructure to maintain this large increase in residents. Thank you, Dana Sherman Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:42am 10-06-22 Thomas Halloran. As a long time Miami Shores resident I wanted to comment on my support for specific elements of the FLUM under consideration (the enhancement of a vibrant Downtown Miami Shores via the proposed density amendments/ vested rights assurance for the Downtown district). The lack of decisions of previous MSV administrations in not addressing the inconsistencies and vagaries of our existing land use and density requirements is what has lead the village to this unfortunate point. Allowing many issues to accumulate over decades; has placed the existing council in the impossible position of trying to solve for a multitude of problems with a silver bullet. I find the uncivil behavior surrounding the FLUM project, demonstrated by many long time residents, unfortunate and unconstructive. The unfounded insinuations of conflicts of interest, and publicly airing out the professional and personal lives of our village council and staff accomplishes one thing, assuring our village that in the future, NO ONE will run for village council out of the fear of being harassed and attacked for any issue on which there are disagreements. The number of years one has lived here should not serve as the litmus test for the validity of ones opinion, we need to embrace some changes. There are, however, several key aspects of the village that have not changed, our neighborly and caring sense of community that welcomes folks from all walks of life. Additional things in MSV that haven't changed: the Community Center which remains the same as when I attended Fun Club and played Baseball in the 80's, the Country Club clubhouse facilities we all enjoy, especially for the 4th of July, have the same lockers from the 1940's, and our Downtown infrastructure retains the same vision from the Shoreland Company buildout in 1928. In order to assure our village a sustainable future we need to make intelligent decisions to enhance these and many other aspects of the village for future generations. Building a vibrant and tax revenue generative downtown is accretive to all villagers, and is vital to our existing small businesses. Using a broad brush of all or nothing in FLUM considerations leaves us with the same problems as before. I encourage all villagers to look for solutions vs problems so we can move this process forward with a collective vision for the future. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:25pm 10-05-22 Trina krispin. I oppose the comp plan in its entirety Luba Kladienko-Ramirez Location: Submitted At: 6:43pm 10-05-22 The downtown area needs more expension in order for our businesses to survive. Would love to see more retail, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. This area has so much potential. Even the residents of Miami Shores go elsewhere for dinner, shopping, etc. Makes no sense. Let’s make positive change and grow together as a community. Thank you