Loading...
2023-02-21 Minutes1 MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 21, 2023 6:30 PM LAWTON MCCALL COMMUNITY CENTER 1) CALL TO ORDER Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:36 PM. 2) MOMENT OF SILENCE / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3) ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Sandra Harris Vice Mayor Daniel Marinberg arrived at 6:39 PM. Councilmember Alice Burch Councilmember Wesley Castellanos Councilmember Timothy Crutchfield ALSO PRESENT: Village Manager Esmond Scott Village Clerk Ysabely Rodriguez Village Attorney Sarah Johnston Village Attorney Chanae Wood 4) ORDER OF BUSINESS Councilmember Crutchfield proffered holding Village Council discussion before and after the comprehensive plan ordinance public hearing. After a brief deliberation, the Council reached consensus and amended the order of business to allow for Council discussion before and after public comments concerning the proposed ordinance, amending the comprehensive plan. Mayor Harris explained public comments will be limited to a maximum of one-minute per speaker after 9:00 PM pursuant to Resolution 2021-08, and Council discussion should be limited to one (1) hour in aggregate. Councilmember Burch objected to the one-minute speaking time limit for the public, and instead proffered limiting Council discussion to allow more time for resident input. 2 There was consensus from the majority of the Village Council to uphold the provision that limits public comments to one-minute after 9:00 PM. 5) PUBLIC COMMENT- 2-Minute Time Limit Mr. Ingraham expressed environmental concerns regarding the zoning matter affecting the silver blue lake and asked for the involvement of Miami Shores residents, administration, and Council. eComments were read into the record. 6) CONSENT AGENDA- All items listed within this section entitled "Consent Agenda" are considered self-explanatory and are not expected to require additional review or discussion, unless a member of the Village Council requests, in which case, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered along with the regular order of business. Village Clerk Rodriguez read the caption of the consent agenda. Vice Mayor Marinberg moved the consent agenda as presented and Councilmember Burch seconded the motion, which carried a 5-0 voice vote. 6.A. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 17, 2023 VILLAGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (STAFF: VILLAGE CLERK). PASSED ON CONSENT. 6.B. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2023 VILLAGE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES (STAFF: VILLAGE CLERK). PASSED ON CONSENT. 6.C. A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT WATERWAYS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR BAYFRONT PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – PHASE IA; PROVIDING CERTIFICATIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (STAFF: VILLAGE MANAGER). PASSED ON CONSENT. 3 7) ORDINANCE(S) ON FIRST READING- PUBLIC HEARING 7.A AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Village Clerk Rodriguez read the caption of the ordinance into the record. Planning and Zoning Director Claudia Hasbun began her opening remarks by giving background on the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Director Hasbun highlighted the following staff recommendations: • Review the proposed analysis • Consider public testimony and evaluate the technical merits of the proposed ordinance in accordance with Florida Statutes 163.3164 and take action. Councilmember Crutchfield began his presentation by reviewing the applicable legal requirements for the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Crutchfield referenced the composition of Miami Shores, stating approximately sixty-nine (69) percent of Miami Shores' land was designated for single-family residential units. Additionally, Councilmember Crutchfield stated current home structures designated as single-family would not change should the proposed Comprehensive Plan be approved; however, the proposed changes could affect parcels that are not zoned for single-family housing usage. While discussing urban sprawl, Councilmember Crutchfield referenced the median price of Miami Shores homes and the percentage of single-family homes and multi-family homes. In closing, Councilmember Crutchfield advocated for zoning practices that will accomplish the following: • Address requirements to provide for future growth • Discourage further urban sprawl • Provide a broader range of housing options in Miami Shores • Provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses • Provide property owners with reasonable and economically viable use Vice Mayor Marinberg thanked Councilmember Crutchfield for his presentation. Vice Mayor Marinberg stated the Comprehensive Plan as proposed does not add additional height, listing the current height limitations under the current zoning code for the downtown corridor, Biscayne corridor, and single-family homes. In regards to the 24 acres of land mentioned in Councilmember Crutchfield’s presentation, Vice Mayor Marinberg stated the land can be developed with no limitation or adherence to the height restrictions as present in other corridors in the Village. Councilmember Burch began her remarks by referencing the duplex housing units that were 4 accepted by Miami Shores after being annexed from Miami Dade County. Councilmember Burch further referenced her dissatisfaction of the prospect of adding additional density to Miami Shores Village. Councilmember Burch expressed concern regarding the lack of community dialogue regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Burch spoke in opposition to the review process for the Comprehensive plan, stating there was not enough time for the Planning and Zoning Board to review the Comprehensive Plan as amended. Councilmember Burch spoke in opposition to Exhibit C as currently drafted, and stated it is not an accurate reflection of the discussions that occurred on the November 30, 2022 Public Information Workshop. Councilmember Castellanos thanked Councilmember Crutchfield for his presentation. Councilmember Castellanos voiced his concern regarding developments that would increase density, and advocated for developments throughout the Village that are harmonious with the existing character of the Village. The Village Council called for an intermission at 7:48 PM. The meeting resumed at 7:58 PM. Mayor Harris opened the floor to public comments. Anne-Camille Hersh announced an event hosted by the Fine Arts Commission and spoke about the discrepancy with the public notice requirement. George Burch spoke about possibly revisiting the comprehensive plan after the upcoming election. Jerome Charles spoke about the discrepancy with the public notice requirement and asked whether the Village Council has adhered to all requirements associated with the comprehensive plan process. Maria McGuiness spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Linda Ortigoza spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Toni McCormick spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Cindy Herbst spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Nancy Dowson spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. AJ Nichols spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Lou Perez asked the Village Council to consider postponing the item until after the election. Pat Toomey spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Andrew McIntosh spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Jeffrey Saadeh spoke in favor of the comprehensive plan. Dennis Peña spoke in favor of the comprehensive plan. Maureen Duffy spoke about urban sprawl and expressed opposition to the comprehensive plan. 5 Cathy Schwartz spoke about urban sprawl and expressed opposition to the comprehensive plan. Peter Hosfeld spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Liana Kozlowski asked the Village Council to reapprove the ordinance on first reading as presented and approved in December 2022. Ms. Kozlowski reintroduced documents into the record. Linda Schwartz spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Raul Guerro spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Nicole Hedmark spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Carmen Renick spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Hutch Gurevitz spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Neil Cantor spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Antonio Chiarella spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Sherry McMillan, Barry University General Counsel, spoke about the statutory requirements affecting the comprehensive plan, specifically as it relates to affordable housing. Michael Loffredo spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Carol Eannace spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Peter Walsh spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan and objected to the tone residents have taken throughout the last year. Randy Gottlieb spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Trina Krispin spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Sarah McSherry spoke about the public notice requirements and discrepancies with the comprehensive plan process. Julio Martinez spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan and further spoke about the need for a new building for Miami Shores Elementary. Julie Isha spoke in favor the comprehensive plan. Patrick Sullivan spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Scott Smith spoke in favor of the comprehensive plan. Warren Bitner spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Andrew Bellinson spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. John Ortega spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Ruiz spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. 6 Tim Duerkop spoke in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Jessica Pluhar asked if the Village has the appropriate level of resources and infrastructure to support the comprehensive plan. Mayor Harris called for a brief intermission (9:38PM) at the request of Councilmember Castellanos. The meeting resumed at 9:48 PM. Village Clerk Rodriguez read eComments into the record. Councilmember Burch shared a letter with the public and Councilmembers regarding events that have lengthened the comprehensive plan process. Councilmember Burch further posed questions regarding difficulties she encountered with the comprehensive plan concerning (1) commercial designation (3.0 FAR) assigned to the Biscayne corridor, (2) no insert into the 2023 comprehensive plan memo revision, (3) the addition of Exhibit C (Miami Shores Country Club Workshop synopsis). Responding to Councilmember Burch’s inquiry regarding the commercial designation of the Biscayne corridor in relation to the FAR, Ms. Hasbun explained the same color and category depicted in the 2018 future land use map is the same color depicted in the NE 2nd Avenue. Ms. Hasbun further clarified there are two land use commercial designations in 2018 comprehensive plan text: restrictive commercial and general commercial. When comparing both areas, it appears one has a higher density and intensity. The restrictive commercial designation for NE 2nd Avenue had a floor area ratio (FAR) range of 1.0 - 3.0., which means the area could be denser. Conversely, the Biscayne corridor (general commercial designation) had a 1.0 FAR. Because there were two land use designation texts for commercial use and one color depicted in the FLUM contained within 2018 comprehensive plan, staff appropriated the ranges and intensity in accordance with the location. Therefore, the proposed comprehensive plan reflects a lower FAR for NE 2nd Avenue than the Biscayne Corridor which has a 3.0 FAR. Ms. Hasbun further elucidated, according to the Planning Board review, it was determined the Biscayne Corridor has higher density and intensity. Referring to her original request, Councilmember Burch asked the Village Council to consider (1) including the number of changes to the comprehensive plan in the 2023-revised memorandum since the review of the local planning agency, (2) Council ratification of the Biscayne Corridor FAR of 3.0, and (3) removing Exhibit C from the transmittal package to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). With respect to the removal of Exhibit C, discussion ensued regarding the importance of including the record and allowing DEO to determine the significance of such record. Mayor Harris attested to the accuracy of the record given her attendance at such workshop. Councilmember Castellanos spoke about finding a middle ground for the proposed FAR for the Biscayne Corridor, advocating for a 2.0 FAR. Councilmember Castellanos asked staff to clarify whether the Village Council met noticing requirements, as he did not locate the public notice for this hearing in the Miami Herald. Village Clerk Rodriguez clarified the public notice was published in the locals section of the Miami Herald and main page of the Daily Business Review at least ten days before the hearing. Village Attorney Johnston clarified such public notices were attached to the agenda. In light of his recent appointment and the public’s request for postponement of the item until there is a new Village Council, Councilmember Castellanos asked the Village Attorneys if he could abstain from voting on the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Village Attorney Johnston answered in the negative based on the information presented. 7 Village Attorney Johnston further explained in the event Councilmember Castellanos has a voting conflict, he may abstain from voting and step away from the dais during the discussion and voting of the item. Councilmember Crutchfield explained the difference between the data needed for a site plan approval versus the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Crutchfield spoke about addressing the range of housing options. Relating to the Mixed Miami Shores Downtown District Sub- designation, Councilmember Crutchfield moved to amend the ordinance (Exhibit D), adding the following clarifying language to Lines 279 (paragraph 8) to reflect: “Building height: The height limitation shall be 40 feet, and buildings in this district shall not exceed three (3) floors.” Councilmember Burch seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Mayor Harris called the question, which carried a 4-1 voice vote. Vice Mayor Marinberg voted in opposition. Relating to the Neighborhood Sub-designation for Mixed Use, paragraph 3 (line 300), Councilmember Crutchfield moved to amend the ordinance to reflect the following language at the end of the paragraph: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the overall mix of uses for the property designated as MU-N and located on 105th Street west of Biscayne Blvd shall be at least 80% residential.” Vice Mayor Marinberg opined the requested amendment would render the property undevelopable. Councilmember Crutchfield amended his motion to include 40 feet in height. Councilmember Burch seconded the motion as amended. Ms. Hasbun clarified the proposed percentage restriction would be in conflict with the language that is in “overall mix,” thereby asking Council to place it in the appropriate section should they choose to support said amendment. Mayor Harris raised concerns regarding the potential of rendering the property unsuitable for development, to which Ms. Hasbun clarified the proposed language allows for a mix of uses. However, Ms. Hasbun deferred to the Village Attorneys with respect to the question regarding downzoning. Village Attorney Johnston clarified an analysis focusing on the current use(s) versus the proposed use(s) would have to be conducted to determine downzoning. Councilmember Crutchfield amended his motion to include the above-referenced language under paragraph 5 (line 266), and Councilmember Burch seconded the motion which carried a 3-2 voice vote. Mayor Harris and Vice Mayor Marinberg voted in opposition. Councilmember Crutchfield moved to amend the ordinance to include the following language to the end of paragraph 4 (Starting on Line 305 under “Compatibility”): “Consistent with this goal, the zoning code regulations implementing this category shall establish staggered setback requirements based on building height so that taller buildings have a greater setback from properties in Miami Shores that are currently zoned as single family residential than the setbacks for lower buildings.” Councilmember Burch seconded the motion, which carried a 5-0 voice vote. Councilmember Burch moved to amend the ordinance to reduce the FAR from 3.0 to 2.0 for the commercial designation affecting the Biscayne Corridor (Line 358). Responding to Vice Mayor Marinberg’s inquiry, Ms. Hasbun clarified a side-by-side comparison would have to be conducted to determine whether any properties would be deemed non-confirming should the proposed amendment pass. Councilmember Castellanos seconded the motion, which carried a 3-2 voice vote. Mayor Harris and Vice Mayor Marinberg voted in opposition. Councilmember Crutchfield moved to approve the ordinance on first reading as amended and Vice Mayor Marinberg seconded the motion, which carried a 3-2 voice vote. Councilmembers Burch and Castellanos voted in opposition. 8 8. MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Scott provided an update on operational matters. 9. ATTORNEY'S REPORT 9.A. FEBRUARY 2023 VILLAGE ATTORNEY REPORT Village Attorney Johnston provided an update on matters affecting the Village Attorney’s Office. Responding to the report, Councilmember Crutchfield asked the Village Council to consider referring public notice provisions in the Village Zoning Code to the Planning Board for review and recommendations. By way of consensus, the Village Council agreed to refer the above- referenced matter to the Planning Board. Village Attorney Johnston indicated a draft ordinance is in progress. Vice Mayor Marinberg asked about referring the proposed comprehensive plan as amended to the Planning Board for an additional review. Councilmember Crutchfield spoke in favor of referring the matter to the Planning Board as a courtesy, but not for official action. Mayor Harris emphasized the advisory capacity of the Planning Board. By way of consensus, the Village Council agreed to refer the above-referenced matter to the Planning Board for review. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS Village Clerk Rodriguez read announcements into the record. 11. ILLAGE COUNCIL COMMENTS Vice Mayor Marinberg expressed support for all Village employees, Charter Officers, and consultants and expressed displeasure with respect to the negative tone directed at staff during the meeting. Councilmember Burch spoke about enabling staff to work with the Planning board to assist the business community in stimulating the downtown district. Responding to Mayor Harris’ inquiry regarding the Downtown District maintenance employee, Mr. Scott indicated staff is working on tying loose ends and once all the components are finalized, such item will be presented to the Village Council in its entirety. Councilmember Castellanos- No comments. Councilmember Crutchfield- No comments. Mayor Sandra Harris- No comments. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion before the Village Council, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 PM. Village Council Meeting Time: 02-21-23 18:30 eComments Report Meetings Meeting Time Agenda Items Comments Support Oppose Neutral Village Council 02-21-23 18:30 17 39 7 31 0 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 you. Cristian Soto, resident Agenda Item: eComments for 5) PUBLIC COMMENT- 2-Minute Time Limit Village Council 02-21-23 18:30 Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral 5) PUBLIC COMMENT- 2-Minute Time Limit 5 0 4 0 7.A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES 34 7 27 0 VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:23pm 02-21-23 Please reconsider the heights for the zoning classification that will include the Barry parcels. A 50 foot height limit is way too high for that area which is surrounded by single family homes. The new developments will be towering over the single family homes and it is not acceptable to the neighbors. Please change the height limit to 40 feet which is what was recommended by the Charter Review Committee, or lower it further. Please also remove the ability of developers to increase the density and floor area ratio of their developments through bonuses. Thank Janine Domlesky Location: Submitted At: 3:11pm 02-21-23 Please vote "NO" on the transmittal vote of the Comprehensive Plan tonight. The Plan is shoddy in that the requirement for the Plan has not been based on data and analysis, as required by the state. This is a plan that has had no traffic studies. A plan that has no data on the impact on our schools. A plan that has no data on the effect on our police force. A plan that has no data on the increase on noise levels. A plan that has no data on the impact on our septic, sewer and water infrastructure. This is a shoddy plan which reflects poorly on both the Village Council and consultants Calvin, Giordano and Associates. I also think it is undemocratic that the 2 newly appointed members are allowed to vote on the Comp Plan. After all, both were appointed by the Council members who are pushing through the Com Plan at a pace that may eliminate the chance for citizen-elected Council members to vote on the final plan after the April election. And, as you have seen, most residents are against the plan as it is now written. On these 2 points alone, I ask you to vote no on the transmittal re-vote tonight at the first reading. Nancee Alavi Location: Submitted At: 9:21am 02-21-23 Im Nancee Alavi and I live At 94 NW 97th streetwith my husband, and our two sons (ages 18mo and 3 yr). We purchased our home 5 years ago becasue we loved the neighborhood, small quiet community within miami, but away from the hustle and bustle. We purchased with the intention of having and raising our family in this beautiful quite niche of Miami. I have read the comp plan, i have spoken with neighbors, police officers and other first responders and the influx of people within this comprehensive plan is not why people moved to the shores. Quite honestly it’s terrifying. Theres more than enough high rises in Miami, other options for places to build in areas that can accommodate the traffic. Miami Ave from 95th stto 103rd is already treated like a race track. The addition of all these residents will just increase that. Every week there is a major accident on that stretch. (My son and i were in a horrific on 2 weeks ago on that stretch.) And one day it will be a pedestrian. We CAN NOT HAVE THIS TYPE OF INCREASE IN OUR COMMUNITY!!! From 95th stto 103rd from miami ave west to nw 2nd ave there are (that i personally know) 23 kids under the age of five! (They will probably be emailing too) There are retirees that have come for the quiet. We dod not move for high rises! We have to vote NO to protect why people came to this neighborhood, for community, families, a quiet place to enjoy. Not to be surrounded by high rises. Thats what Brickell is for. This small village does not have the infrastructure for this type of influx! Please consider the integrity and history of this community and vote no! Preserve our piece of paradise and our community. VOTE NO!!! Btw! I have emailed this several times, without a single person acknowledging it. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:41am 02-21-23 Dr. Risa Blair 79 NW 97th Street Miami Shores, FL 33150 My husband and I moved to the sleepy little village of Miami Shores 13 years ago. We want to keep it that way. We do not want apartment buildings to be built here, as it will put a big strain on village services, especially police and village services/systems, in addition to schools. There's already overwhelming traffic in this small village. Please vote NO on changing the town plan to include apartment houses and all the required support needed, as it will definitely change the character of this sleepy village. VOTE NO! Thank you. Dr. Risa Blair Our village is beautiful as it is, as it has been; a place where you can live quite without the fear of being robbed or Agenda Item: eComments for 7.A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Arnold Markowitz Location: Submitted At: 9:07pm 02-19-23 I like much of the Comprehensive Plan, but I object fiercely to the following: Any changes south of NE 97th Street. Increasing building height to 4 stories on NE 2nd Ave. Development of apartments and businesses on the now vacant Barry U property near I-95 without thorough consideration of or provision for the public safety and infrastructure needs that would go with a project of that magnitude. Other than that, the will of the village population should govern all decisions. If a substantial portion of the public opposes any part of the plan, that part should be excluded unless it can be modified to satisfy the public's objections I want to add an observation that a great deal of work went into attracting and retaining the new downtown enterprises. Imposing arbitrary development plans would put those businesses out of business and make it necessary to begin all over again. No to that. I say again: No to that. Overall Sentiment Guest User Location: Submitted At: 3:15pm 02-21-23 Dan & Jo Robbin oppose the land use ordinance, we oppose changing the look of the Village. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:58pm 02-21-23 My name is Jonathan Hofman. I live on NE 6th Avenue and we have already enough traffic and pollution, in addition to reckless drivers putting at risk our children by not respecting the 15mph speed limit on school hours or even the regular speed limit. I am against the comp plan and I think these changes will bring unwelcome traffic, pollution and noise; and with that also more potential crime/theft. I Zoe Chamorro oppose ordinance 7.A for meeting on 2/21/33. your children being harassed by strangers. Jade Ocean Moran Location: Submitted At: 2:53pm 02-21-23 The changes to the comp plan need to be done for what the people of this neighborhood are for. NO zone changes to 10500 Biscayne and definitely no height changes to that area either. As for the changes to increase our area to accommodate an absurd amount of new comers we are against that as well. Miami shores is a unique area to the rest of miami and should 100% be protected. Single family homes must stay the majority in this neighborhood. We are paying the taxes. So please listen to the people and not yours or the developers pockets. This. Is. Our. Neighborhood! Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:45pm 02-21-23 Mary Benton, 10108 NE 1st Ave. I oppose the fact that this item is up for a vote, given that this is a uniquely contentious issue that has created much ire and mistrust, and you will only add to that by voting on something so important to our future as a village with two council members who were not elected to serve the residents, but rather appointed to fill vacancies. What's the rush? Village council elections are coming up very soon. Lois Mamula Location: Submitted At: 2:42pm 02-21-23 I am a resident and I am opposed. . Corey Welch Location: Submitted At: 2:42pm 02-21-23 I support a "YES" vote on the new comp plan. We already have buildings within Miami Shores that exceed the density and height limits of the existing plan, the new plan will NOT significantly change the so-called "character" of the village. For the sake of the environment, we need to build UP not out. Density is a GOOD thing for both our local small businesses as well as our tax base. Please vote YES! Charles Traub Location: Submitted At: 2:24pm 02-21-23 A university is usually an asset to a neighborhood. Historically, the presence of Barry University has not infringed upon the quality of life in Miami Shores. However, the plan for the Lennar/Barry development is ill- considered given the values of the university and what its obligations to its neighbors should be. No one should object to Barry developing a property they own for the expansion of the university itself: to provide better facilities for its students, affordable housing for its staff/facility and students and the expansion of its educational mission. Clearly, this is not the case in regard to the current development plan which has not examined traffic increases, sewerage and water management. The environmental impact on the Village and the fact that the planned housing will not be affordable to the university community are issues hidden in secrecy. There has been a heavy hand in these deliberations that is transparent to anyone who has followed the developments over the last couple of months. There appears to be impropriety in regards to the interest of individual board members. Even a semblance of a conflict of interest should be revealed and members with clouds about their connections and histories need to reveal them and to recuse themselves from voting. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 2:17pm 02-21-23 Gloria Saxon Location: Submitted At: 1:53pm 02-21-23 The Council should not have the authority to go against the majority of the village residents. My husband & I have been residents of Miami Shores for 58 years. If changes are to be made there should be a village referendum where ALL the residents can vote on the matter. It is disgraceful that some of the council members have their own agenda and do not care what the majority of the residents want. Gloria Saxon Guest User Location: Submitted At: 1:38pm 02-21-23 My name is Karina Palladino. I live in 308 NE 96th St. I am against the comp plan. I live on a main road, and I think these changes would bring unwelcome traffic, pollution and noise. Melissa Mazzitelli Location: Submitted At: 1:32pm 02-21-23 The debate over the comprehensive plan has been reduced to mere tag lines. Those in favor are said to be in favor of business and modernity; those opposed are said to be elitist, racist, "not in my backyard" (NIMBY), and against progress. The anti-comp plan position is much more nuanced. This is not a vote to keep the village entirely single family (the village has multi-family dwellings already) and it is not a vote to prevent progress. Rather, I oppose this particular iteration of the comprehensive plan. Yes, some density is needed, but the level of density proposed by the prior council, especially in light of expert recommendations is more than we need at this time. This should not be an all or nothing proposition where we are racing headlong into major changes. While we will not wait up tomorrow with skyscrapers on our doorsteps, a yes vote as to this version of the plan would open the door to more development than many residents (myself included) are comfortable with. A less aggressive plan could both allow for growth, fix the problems with the prior plan, and allow for more thoughtful consideration of our village's needs and wants. This should not be an "us versus them" discussion and I find it ironic that the same village that rejected the seawall (and kayak ramp) proposition in part because of the impact of those frequenting the ramp area is now hitting the gas pedal on developing several areas around the village. Please consider why this is occurring and ask yourselves what has changed. Why was one small kayak ramp so much more offensive than substantially increasing density in the village and rezoning the 105th street site? Why can't we stomach a few more people accessing the bay, yet we are good with hundreds or even thousands more taking up residence? Why are concerns about traffic and sewer and other basic infrastructure issues so much less concerning with so much bigger of a change? I remain opposed to this version of the comprehensive plan. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 1:20pm 02-21-23 My name is Beverley Markowitz and I live at 9923 NE 4th Avenue Road. At this time I would like to see the errors Comprehensive Plan fixed. Also, right now additional residential density and adding mixed use development into the Comp Plan is totally unnecessary and unwarranted. I oppose on the changes as proposed -- repeat AS PROPOSED -- and want to see studies conducted which investigate the various impacts on the community as a whole, before density is added. I want to stay on task to fix the errors in the current plan. Linda Mennes Location: Submitted At: 1:13pm 02-21-23 We are not in favor of approving the present Comp Plan. We feel that there are many items that should be addressed in a manner that represents the opinions of a large majority of the residents. We are not opposed to improvements to the village, but keeping it a residential single family community should be the top priority. C. Martin and Linda Mennes 317 NE 104 Street Guest User Location: Submitted At: 1:06pm 02-21-23 John Dunlap I would like to express my opposition to the proposed comp plan! I have been to a number of the public meetings, and to this point, I still do not believe that the council has adequately researched the impacts either negatively or positively that this comp plan will have on the village. I suspect they will be more negative than positive based on the projected population increases that this comp plan proposes. It is baffling to see the overwhelming opposition to the proposed comp plan, and still have a number of council members who are supporting it. There should be no rush to pass the comp plan based on the number of village residents who are opposing this plan and lack of adequate impact studies. We have two new council members who have been appointed and not voted in so we should at a minimum wait until election day in April and let the village people assist in deciding this important measure through the voting process. Common sense dictates with so many village residents opposing this and council members who are in favor of it that there is the appearance that these council members may be representing other entities and not the village residents. The village will speak in April, and it will be curious to see how the new council members vote either for the overwhelming majority of the village residents, or for special interest. The village is watching! Thank you!! Guest User Location: Submitted At: 1:01pm 02-21-23 To the Council: Please let common sense prevail and do NOT pass this monstrosity in the making. The public sentiment and momentum is clearly not in favor of passing this against the will of the people. The ramifications are multi- generational and will forever negatively alter this priceless piece of paradise so many of us have made as our homesteaded forever homes. Do not be swayed by one or two people who want to dictate the future of MSV at the cost of the overwhelming majority. Do not let this be your everlasting legacy; your albatross for all to see. The people will not forget. Thank you Robert Alexander Miami Shores Estates Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:20am 02-21-23 John Berryman 248 NE 98th Street Miami Shores, FL It has become abundantly clear that the developers have a majority of our Miami Shores Village council in their pockets. It is unconscionable that the council would be voting on this matter when two of the members were not even elected. The council is also acting out of character forcing this plan through before the election in April. I assure you that our displeasure will be clearly indicated at the ballot box replacing most of this sham council. You must vote NO on this plan as it will be the end of the Miami Shores that we all bought into and that we love. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:13am 02-21-23 I do not support the comprehensive plan amendment as it is written now. I do not agree with more mixed use and commercial use in MSV. Please vote NO to this shameful proposal made by this shameful council Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:06am 02-21-23 Andy Wagner: 301 NE 98th St. 33138. Miami Shores area resident since 2004.I am fully in support of Agenda item 7.A, amending the village comp plan. There seems to be too much fear-mongering & misinformation about this issue. Change is inevitable & necessary - better we grasp our future & work together than have something imposed upon us. Thank you. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:53am 02-21-23 Good Evening Mayor, Councilmembers and staff, My name is Damon Stinson and I reside with my wife and son at 236 NE 103rd Street for over 10 years now. We chose to live in Miami Shores because we didn’t want to live downtown, and didn’t want the traffic and commute of living in western communities. We wanted great schools we could walk to and recreational facilities we could enjoy, and we were willing to pay for it. We found it all in our beautiful Miami Shores, but it’s been chipped away at slowly since we’ve moved here. We vehemently oppose this item, feeling it is not acceptable to the majority of the residents in this community that you were elected to represent. Please listen to the thousands of us residents of Miami Shores in opposition to this item. Please do not dismiss us as just the vocal minority, as our petitions have more signatures than the number of votes some of you received in your last election. Please listen to us and continue to work with us, as there are still too many issues to include in this e-comment to individually list that still need to be addressed. Thank you for your consideration, Damon Stinson Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:45am 02-21-23 My name is Fabiano Aguilar. My wife, Mariana and our two teenagers live on 9935 NE 13 Street in the shores. I cannot believe that this council is yet attempting to pass this Comp Plan yet again; despite the great majority of the residents being against it. I URGE YOU council members to postpone any vote on this topic until after the April elections. We live in a democracy, and you should act accordingly. There have been rumors of impropriety (corruption) behind the scenes, there are strong residents' opposition to key elements of the plan and the way the council has managed this entire process. The residents have been lied to and manipulated. My family participated in a few workshops where approximately 190-200 people were against the plan and 1-2 in favor in each meeting. The mediator handled it in a biased way, trying to change what we were saying in a blatant attempt to manipulate the workshop and create a false sense of proper process. We now have 2 members who were not elected in the council to fill in vacant positions. The correct, honest and ethic way to proceed is to postpone the vote and let the new, to be elected council in April make the adjustments the residents desperately have tried to convey. THERE WILL BE LITIGATION on this matter. We will not allow the past wrongdoings to go unpunished. Please do the right thing and postpone this vote once and for all, until the April elections. We should allow the voters to decide the future of their village on the ballot. Fabiano Aguilar 571 236 8093 Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:57am 02-21-23 Hi, i strongly oppose this plan. Please reconsider and take into consideration the will of MS residents. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:55am 02-21-23 Gordon Blair 79 NW 97th Street, Miami Shores, FL Please Vote No! We do not need high rise housing in Miami Shores. This was meant to be a quiet neighborhood. If high rise buildings are erected, everything will change - more traffic, more strain on the police, fire and medical help, traffic, parking, and schools. Again, Please Vote No. Michael Bell Location: Submitted At: 8:44am 02-21-23 I am supporting moving forward with the Comprehensive Plan as it has previously been submitted. The Comprehensive Plan addresses egregious errors in the prior plan, which--if not corrected--portends potential liability for myself and many other residents. Further, it allows the Village to move forward in a thoughtful manner. As a relatively new resident of Miami Shores (November 2020), I appreciated the abundant outreach, workshops, and opportunities for community input on the Comprehensive Plan. I found the process inclusive and notifications timely and frequent. I urge the Council to stay the course and correct the wrongs of the past. I am disappointed that this is being brought back for consideration as I believe this matter was already settled. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 7:47am 02-21-23 I am opposed to the language the council members inserted into the draft comp plan, the changes the character of the Village and favors future development. Just fix it for now and input the the recommendations of the residents. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 7:16am 02-21-23 This is the exact opposite reason why we purchased a home in Miami Shores. We strongly oppose the ammendment of future land use. We also do not understand why the next candidate officials that ran for the election have not been seated since elected have now been removed or resigned. Michelle Longman Caroline Mitchum Location: Submitted At: 7:10am 02-21-23 I find this rush to pass the unpopular agenda akin to the rush to appoint RBG’s replacement on the Supreme Court right before elections after denying president Obama an appointment for over a year… LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. Elections are less than 2 months away. SHAME ON YOU. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 6:23am 02-21-23 We have lived in the Shores for over 20 years and do not want to see the small town/community feeling lost. The proposed plan will lead to overcrowdings due to a lack of proper planning just to satisfy developers and those that will profit. While we welcome development, it should be in line with a plan that enhances this community for those that reside and visit here. This is nothing more than a future land grab for a larger pristine parcel. thank you Mark & Gilda Humbles Joseph Raia Location: Submitted At: 6:05am 02-21-23 Good evening - the plan passed previously in December prior to the two council vacancies and should be passed again. Nothing in this plan substantially changes anything we don’t already have in our zoning code and density allowances already. We need to resolve the inconsistencies as soon as possible given the looming state deadline. Thank you Guest User Location: Submitted At: 5:47am 02-21-23 The insistence of the council in pushing the changes proposed in the Comp plan is deeply disturbing given the fact that 2 council members, at the very least, have been operating with questionable motives and allegiances. The council should refrain from making any critical decisions until after the elections. This is the most intimate level of politics that people experience (ie their immediate vicinity) and we expect a direct correlation between our needs and concerns with our council. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 9:58pm 02-20-23 Cathleen Charles, I am writing as a concerned resident. My comments are directed at the 2 new council members. I am not going to rehash what has been spoken by the majority of Village residents. It is quite clear to those of us that have attended council meeting, we know where the 3 other Council members stand. No matter what I write, it will not change their vote. I ask the newly appointed Councilman who have now attended at least 4 meeting in their appointed role to take a moment, pause and listen to the residents. What is the common message you have heard? Are the majority of Residents voices supporting the amended comprehensive plan? I would think by now, you would be asking the question why are they not in favor of the current proposal? I have been at most meetings and have not seen the data that supports this plan. Where can I find that this is in the best interest of residents like me? The vast majority of residents have concerns, you are on the 4th attempt of the 1st reading. That should raise concern & give you pause...can't even get public notice right. This should make you think about what you are doing in this process. I am asking you to DO THE RIGHT THING and allow the residents to elect 3 council members on April 11, 2023. Please defer, if you are unable to do so then vote NO to this amendment. John Ise Location: Submitted At: 12:06pm 02-20-23 The Values of the Comp Plan The decision the Council has before it today is whether to approve the presented Comp Plan, or continue a process that will never end. But a larger decision individual Councilmembers need to make is what will be their legacy with today’s decision a will align with the civic…even moral values they adhere to. The Council will decide whether we are a community that values inclusion…or exclusion. The Council will decide whether the Village promotes socio-economic integration, with mixed-income housing options (relative as it may be) for the local workforce; or we seek to become an economically exclusive community. The Council will decide whether we seek to be part of the solution to urban sprawl, or our actions perpetuate it. The Council will determine whether we seek to support Barry University, or actively harm it. The Council will determine whether a better downtown corridor is possible, or whether we perpetuate stagnation. The Council will decide if we move towards becoming a more pedestrian/bicycle-friendly community, or we perpetuate auto dependency. The Council will determine whether we are a community that fixes the dysfunctions of past Comp Plans, or we perpetuate those dysfunctionalities based on super-charged political rhetoric and public pressure that offers no constructive alternative. As Spike Lee put it, “Do the Right Thing.” But it was incomplete. “Do the Right Thing…even when it’s hard…especially when it’s hard.” Guest User Location: Submitted At: 8:39pm 02-19-23 I definitely do not agree. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 11:37am 02-19-23 My husband and I support the new Comp Plan. We live at 9909 NE 4th Avenue Road, Miami Shores since 2014. We need to develop downtown into a more vibrant and active commercial space which will raise tax revenue and support a wider variety of residents who want to live here. I like many of my neighbors would like to be at this meeting, but because of the booing, name calling, and circus like atmosphere these meetings have become, I choose to submit my support for this plan via e-comments. Guest User Location: Submitted At: 10:50am 02-18-23 Hello, everyone. I was born in Miami, moved into Miami Shores when I was 6 years old. I attended Miami Shores Elementary and Doctor's Charter School. I'm a lifelong resident of this city and today, I want to begin participating in the future of the village I grew up in. I support the initiative to build more affordable housing in this area, for one simple reason: it would let me continue living here. I am 26 years old, I've signed up to volunteer at the elementary school. I have a low income, and buying a single-family home will be impossible for me no matter what. But I could rent, and eventually I might afford a townhouse or apartment, but only if I can stay here long enough to be established. Otherwise, I'll be forced to leave. So when you ask, who is this gentle density increase for? It is for your children. It is so they can stay in the beautiful village they grew up in. So they can walk to work, live close to friends and family, enjoy a cup of coffee on the weekends. I remember my classmates. After we graduated high school, nearly all of us moved north, to better prospects in livelier cities. The only ones who stayed behind were those who couldn't afford to move. I'm the only one who still loves this place. Miami Shores is green, and sunny, and beautiful, but it's too quiet. Some of you like the quiet, but to me, it sounds like the silence of a slow death, and I don't want Miami Shores to die. Gabriela Barreras, 437 NE 102nd St