Of couse I'm not surprised
There is not a project in this City of County that is not approved. Sickening.
The only good news about this is that the large lot size of the project and the small quantity of homes being built, means less traffic and less development.
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
6 Comments:
Nope
Are you sure it was approved?
It was settled by the affected parties, the Bay Homes Neighborhood Assn that abuts the property, the Kampong and the developer. If all affected parties settle then that is a win for the residents. We can't always stop development but at least we can make it palatable.
Yay! Why not add more over-priced homes to the market that can sit around empty.
And while we're at it, why not make sure all of those homes are right on top of the historic landmarks and natural beauty that defines the Grove.
Cheers to the affected parties that they can make a palatable solution. I'm sorry that they even had to fight the battle.
It doesn't seem to end. What's next, expanding with more homes into the Everglades? (oh, did I bring that up).
Just venting a little frustration...We have such a sparkling piece of beauty that seems to be dimming before our eyes.
Anon 10:48 PM
It isn't as if it were a government decision that is going to cost you money. If the homes don't sell, it is someone's risk. If the property is private, then there are a zillion rights that are attached to the property rights.
At least, we will probably get homes spread out over 30,000 feet of land each not zero lot lines in 5,000 sq ft lots that would pack 6 times the density.
My understanding is that even the Kampong itself is private as I have been told in some ocassions that "I can't be there" when I have gone in with my bike to ride.
I lived in Brickell for 6 years --at the Atlantis on Brickell-- and trust me, compared with some of the legal battles that we had to fight, including the one with Skyline, getting a few homes in 30,000 feet lots is not all that bad.
If our city were run by smart people --it isn't, really-- they would have easily gotten a public park out of the entire deal.
Look, I understand that everyone is critical of developers and their intentions. From recent history alone, there is every right to have that mindset. However, this situation was completely different, and I will tell you why:
(1) The parcel is 7 and a quarter acres. With that land, the developer had a total density max of 65, that's right, 65 units. How many will they build pursuant to the MUSP applied for, 11 max.
(2) The houses on the site are not yet designed. As such, individuals will be purchasing "lots" and will design them within the City Code, and in fact, there were design guidelines included as part of the MUSP that go well beyond the R-1, SD-18, and NCD-3 district regulations.
(3) In fact, there is nothing that would prohibit one owner from purchasing 2 or more lots for development.
(4) The developer has been working on this project for 5 years, and has included the Kampong and the North Bay Drive Homeowner's Association in their considerations.
(5) The Kampong went as far as to issue a letter of support for the project back in 2002, before reversing its opinion this time around, not looking to kill the project, but looking to redesign it with the homes facing the residential to the South.
(6) The Kampong is only in existance because Jack Luft, former City Administrator, issued an interpretation creating the "Botanical Gardens" use back in 1997. By the way, that has never been codified, as it should have been within a year following the interpretation. They hold what really are commercial activities such as private parties on the site. It is private property. It is not a public site, although it should be. And to be honest, the major concern of the Kampong was not the development, but, rather, the people that would be in close proximity, and that will probably complain when the Kampong has its parties every weekend, often extending past the midnight curfew.
(7) The developer hired some of the best archtects and landscape architects in the business, such as Raymond Jungles and Lisa Hammer. The tree mitigation on the site will approach 400%, well beyond any City requirements.
(8) At the end of the day, just because you build doesn't mean you make a profit. Who are you to decide what I can or cannot do with my property within reason. Fact is, there will probably not be any substantial development on the site for another 4-5 years. Each individual home needs to go back to the City for a Class II Special Permit, and to the HEP Board. There are layers and layers of oversight here, and the developer wanted it this way.
(9) Those neighbors most affected by the development were in agreement with the final result. At the end of the day, isn't that what it is all about. If you punish a developer that does things the right way, seeking input from all stakeholders, making modifications and concessions, minimizing the development intensity, etc., and still bash them over the head, what incentive do they have to do things the right way?
(10) As to the public park, they City does not have any money to purchase the property, and the site was too narrow for a partial dedication to the City.
I understand the knee-jerk reaction, but, if you want to truly analize whether this was the City acting as the City always does, or whether this was in fact the right project for the particular site, you need to do further due diligence.
Post a Comment
<< Home