Loading...
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.