HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Cindy Snyder-Letter to Commissioners Proposed AmendmentsSubmitted into the public
record for itein (s) 1,1
on L /(A / A City Clerk
From: Cindy Snyder, South Grove Neighborhood Assoc.
Subject: NCD-3, NCD-2 Proposed Amendment PZ10 file 3001, Feb.28, 3019
There are numerous things about proposed changes to NCD codes that are very
problematic; go against their Intents and create confusion.
1 "Building Actual Area", as defined by the county is "the sum total of all
measured areas within a subject property. This includes garages, patios,
mezzanines, interior offices and all other areas maintained in the Property
Appraiser's records." Use of the "actual building area to lot ratio" results in a
realistic measure of scale & mass and can conveniently be used to evaluate
proposed MASS of a building to the existing MASS of dwellings in a given
subdivision, This terminology is useful for T-3 properties.
The FLR definition is presently applied in Miami to T-6 zones, 8 stories and
higher. For T-3, suburban zones its use would add much confusion; as defined,
the term excludes many building components which provide MASS, add to Scale
and cover land.
2. The Existing NCD-3, Neighborhood Conservation language: The single family residential district
is intended to protect the low density residential and dominant tree canopy characteristics of Coconut
Grove and prevent the intrusion of additional density, uses and height. re: Lots and building sites:
"Wherever an existing single-family residence or lawful accessory building(s) or structures(s) is located on
one or more lots or portions thereof, such lots shall thereafter constitute only one build site and no permit
shall be issued for the construction of more than one single-family residence except by Warrant. Such
structures shall include but not be limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, walls, and fences and other at
grade or above ground improvements. No building sites in existence prior to Sept. 24, 2005 shall be
diminished in size except by Warrant, subject to the criteria specified in Art. 4, Table 12 Design Review
Criteria" These criteria require consistency with neighborhood context, NOT changing neighborhood
context.
On numerous streets, where existing streetscapes are composed of various sized sites that have
existed Ionq term, in excess of 80 years, they would be at risk under this proposal. Proposed Map
Diagram A3.1 is NOT representative of many of present larger site configurations; or SD.18, since
1991 and 18.1, since 1995 as claimed, which require a minimum lot width of 100 ft.
City's Proposal's would allow creation of more 50 ft. wide sites, allowing twice the density and
intensity. The division of sites inevitably leads to more and narrower sites, problematic with regard to
narrow side set -backs. We object to the creation of more narrow sites.
At sites where huge houses have been built or are under construction and are placed 5 ft. from their lot
lines, and almost always encroach into front set -backs, they loom over the next door neighbors' houses,
blocking light and breeze. Under proposal we would also likely see houses 5 ft. or more higher than
presently allowed. Instead of enforcing code, the proposal makes it worse. Current warrant criteria,
NCD-3.6, are in plain language, and need to be clearly stated and enforced; 1. No increase in density, 2.
No material decrease in tree canopy, 3. No additional uses. 4. No additional height.
Please vote no to this proposal.
3. The City's proposal would allow more density and significant increases in allowable height, with
inadequate plans for improving infrastructure. T4 density (36 to 65), T5 Density (65 to 450 130); Stealth
up zoning. Height for NCD-3 zoned T3, (the suburban transect), increased by 2.5 feet, 2.5 ft. above grade
+ (20 to 25) ft. to eve +10 ft. to top of pitched roof 37.5 ft. total. Flat roofs could have a 200 ft.2structure on
top instead of the now required limit of 25 ft.2. T4 & T5 zoned areas allowed 4 stories, and 6 stories
- N\0\m‘\-\ri\ I\Q-\A\ ‘fNiN - 0-?( Lum'\s5-\t\m(5 ?ikqknt(\ \f\i\k4i,m4s
Submitted into the pubrlitc
record fpr item(s)
on L%7,q, / . City Clerk
respectively. In effect a stealth one story increase for "mezzanine". The additional density will require
building sub -standard units and parking facilities. The term affordable housing doesn't mean anything
other than lower prices, and lower quality housing, is this really appropriate for one of the most desirable,
affluent bay front communities in South Florida??? We object to this proposal. Please vote no.
4. Misinterpretation of public benefit goal of affordable housing in Island West Grove. Extending bonus
housing units, height, and standards for units and parking to all of Coconut Grove dilutes and misplaces
the focus of affordable housing. How would our City government and our commissioner's office police or
enforce affordable housing in our huge & diverse City? When rules become overly complicated and
confusing problems multiply, is this the goal? Any changes to existing code need to add clarity, not
contradictory and confusing language. Let's get things straightened out. We continue to insist the intent of
our existing code be enforced, not diluted & muddled up! At most, perhaps consider implementation the
public benefit goal meant for NCD-2 on an experimental basis in say the 3300, 3400, and 3500 blocks of
Grand Avenue, or some other 3 block area in the Island West Grove, and evaluate its effectiveness in 3
years. Any West Grove residents who have been displaced in the last 2 years, or who would be displaced
in the next 3 years, should have priority on obtaining any "affordable" housing units created.
5. Increasing or doubling density of T3-R( suburban- restricted), T3-O(suburban- duplex) ,T4( 3 story, )
and T5(5 story) zoned areas in Coconut Grove with no provisions for: improved infrastructure, roads,
parking, sanitary sewage, transit, and utilities does not add up to Neighborhood Conservation. This is not
city planning; it is a recipe for chaos, disease, congestion, frustration, and despair. It is very concerning
that the currently proposed: Bonus programs, Public benefit, and Affordable housing, are being used to
work around zoning regulations which are in existence for good reason; to protect residents' health and
welfare. This seems a giant step away from government in the sunshine, basic honesty and integrity
expected from elected and appointed officials; to maximize profits of speculators. developers and land
bankers. Up Zoning is Up -zoning regardless of however it may be referred to and we are opposed to it
and object to devious government manipulation which would undermine, NOT enhance Neighborhood
Conservation Goals. This is disrespectful of homesteaded homeowners' rights, threatens their
property values and does not add up to Neighborhood Conservation. Please vote no to this
proposal.
6. The proposed revision for NCD-2 , includes the relevant boundaries of the Village Island West sub-
district. The proposed revision for NCD-3 includes overall boundaries of Coconut Grove, and boundaries
of the sub -district of Village Center, however the 3 other sub -district's boundaries have been left out
and also need to be included in the Boundaries section. One size does not fit all. The different
areas have different concerns and needs; it is just common sense to be aware of and responsive
to those differences, For example areas in Transit Oriented Districts are in the long range plan to
become greater density to help reduce carbon emissions. Those areas might reasonably be up -zoned,
according to plan.
Some sub -districts are primarily resident owner occupied and homesteaded, while some are heavily
investor owned rentals. These two types of property owners have property rights which differ.
Investors objectives are to make money, resident owners wish to have the quiet enjoyment of their homes
and see property values at least not be reduced and or threatened. Eliminating the sub -districts and
ignoring these differences insures that many people do not get what they want or what they
purchased when they bought their property. This is one of many concerns we have, please vote no to
this blanket proposal which covers and effects a myriad of different areas and issues. Too many
complicated proposed changed being lumped together. Please vote no.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this proposal to change long existing NCD-3 and
NCD-2 codes which would have very significant and long lasting negative impacts on the various
neighborhoods and neighbors within them, as well as the entire area of Coconut Grove.