HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Charles Treister-Letter to Commissioners proposed NCD-3 RevisionsSubmitted into the public
record 'or its) ?Za to
on City Clerk
Charles Treister, Architect
1624 Micanopy Avenue
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
February 28, 2019
Commissioners Russell, Reyes, Carollo, Gort & Hardeman
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Re: Proposed NCD-3 Revisions: Problems that need correcting
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing you as an architect and home builder, as a life-long resident of Coconut Grove, and
someone who has designed and built single family homes and other buildings in Coconut Grove and
Greater Miami for over 35 years.
Reservations about Proposed Revisions- 50% FLR is way too restrictive:
I have expressed to you all my strong reservations about the current proposed changes to the NCD-3
with respect to the severe reduction in allowable building area on a single family lot from the current
80% of lot area to 50% of lot area. This severe reduction will significantly impact the rights of property
owners to use and enjoy their property as it will curtail their ability to add onto an existing house or
build a new house up to the sizes that most people want today. This will lower the typical Grove home
owner's property value, which is not only terrible for the homeowner, but will also negatively affect the
entire City as it will lower the tax base and the City's revenues. I would expect the property values to fall
because of these restrictions 25%-50% depending on the property size and location.
My Suggestion — A More Reasonable Reduction to 65% FLR:
I believe the goal of the changes - preserving the tree canopy and charm of the Grove - can be achieved
with a more reasonable reduction of an allowable building area of 65% of the lot area. At this reduced
level, additions or new houses of a decent size can be built, the rights of the individual property owner
are still preserved, home values will not diminish, and the overall impact to the Grove and City of Miami
will be positive.
Other Specific Problems with details of the Proposed Revisions:
In addition to my overall reservation about the negative impacts of the restrictions in allowable house
size, I have reviewed the details of the proposed revisions and have found a number of other problems
with the proposed changes from a perspective of an architect/builder that I also think will significantly
impact the ability of a homeowner to design and construct a new house or an addition to their current
house. These other problems should be addressed and modified, prior to any action that the
commission may take on adopting some of part of these changes. Below is my list of details that need to
be revised or clarified:
L-uvv\5sloners (5 - K1-2) /vej,`),,As
Submitted into the public
record fpr ite (s) Q (,,, \ O
on (,1 1A / . City Clerk
1. Demolitions: Article 2.2 regarding demolitions requiring a Warrant. This needs to be clarified
that the review is only with respect to any trees being disrupted or the preservation of existing
trees on the site. The last sentence which requires a " buildable area diagram illustrating the
potential developable area" should be stricken. The Warrant description in Miami 21 is designed
to review and approve the construction of new buildings, not demolition. The criteria listed is
only "compliance with code", the proposed use and the "design review criteria". It will be
impossible to review these things without plans for a new structure which is separate from a
demolition permit.
2. Cantilevered Encroachments: Article 5.3.2 a. 1— regarding cantilevered portions of Awnings,
balconies, bay windows and roofs. The new language describes how these elements can
encroach 3 feet into the first layer. It needs to clarify that this three feet will be measured from
the front facade of the building, so that it will be measured from either the 30 foot setback or
any section of the fagade that encroaches 10 feet into the foot setback for that portion of the
building.
3. Cantilevered Encroachments: Article 5.3.2 a. 2 - regarding cantilevered portions of Awnings,
balconies, bay windows and roofs. The new language describes how these elements can
cantilever into the side setback but does not mention how these elements can cantilever into
the rear setback as well. It should be added. I believe the current code allows a three feet
cantilever of these elements.
4. Building Heights: Article 5.3.2 d. Building heights. Need to clarify that on a flat roof the parapet
is referring to the typical small protrusion at the line of the outer wall, and is not referring to any
screens or recessed walls around mechanical equipment.
5. Mechanical equipment enclosures: Article 5.3.2 e.. The wording that the mechanical equipment
should be enclosed by "parapets" to conceal it should be changed to say "screens" to conceal it.
The current practice by the City is to allow a wooden or metal slat screen around the mechanical
equipment which blocks the view, allows air circulation (which is needed for the equipment) ,
and is light weight ( which is better). The problem with the describing it as a "parapet" is that it
connotes a solid block and concrete wall, and it would also cause confusion about the building
height issue. If the 25 foot height is measure from the top of the parapet, if one were to subtract
3-1/2 feet for the parapet height from the 25 foot overall height, one is left with a top of roof
elevation of only 21'-6" which is untenable. In the same paragraph, where it says "Building
features may extend up to 3-1/2 feet above the maximum Building Height" it should be revised
to say 'Building Features or screens around mechanical equipment may extend...."
6. Parking in First Layer: Article 5.3.4 c . The requirement that "all required parking shall be set
back a minimum of 15 feet from the Primary Frontage" may not work on some smaller lots and
should have the ability to be relieved by Warrant.
7. Maximum Width of Parking: Article 5.3.4 d. This describes that in a T3-R or T3-L the maximum
30% of the width of the fagade may be parking, including unenclosed, covered, or garage. The
code needs to add language that clarifies that in the case of a side facing garage, where the
garage doors are not visible from the street, that the 30% limitation would not apply. The code
should encourage the use of the side facing garage, on lots where this solution is possible and
the 30% rule as currently written, will actually discourage the use of a side -facing garage.
Otherwise, a side facing garage would only be possible on a front fagade of a building that is at
least 73 feet wide.
Submitted into the pubi 1 record for ite s) „
on " / (, . City Clerk
8. Garage Access Openings: Article 5.3.4 e. This states that Garage Structures with access openings
that face the street shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the front wall of the Structure.
A clarification should be added that in the case of a access opening that is side facing — or
perpendicular — to the street, it the access opening can come out to the front wall of the
Structure.
I appreciate your efforts to make sure that if we do change the zoning code, it is done thoughtfully so as
not to make our property values and community worse off than the current code.
Charles Treister, Architect & Grove Resident