Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-John Snyder-Remarks and Memo to CommissionersRemarks: Dr. John Snyder President South Grove Neighborhood Association Addressing Miami City Commission January 24, 2019 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.9 . on 01/2411019 , City Clerk A neighborhood Conservation District is intended to preserve unique and distinctive neighborhoods. Coconut Grove is such a neighborhood and has had two NCDs since 2005, NCD-3's zoning started out as 10 pages, One and one half pages of definitions and procedures, four and one half pages which dealt solely with single family district regulations and four pages which dealt with limits on retain. The NCD code has always been silent on duplex and multifamily zoning allowing Miami-21 code to apply. The existing single family district code is written in plain language so that residents can understand it, one table. This proposal strikes every word of that code and replaces it with more than 20 pages of regulations maps, tables, and diagrams which bear no resemblance to existing code, It would change the zoning from T3R to T3L eliminating the singde family district entirely. It is primarily, focused on commercial mixed use property which it up zones while circumventing use of that term, it converts duplex property to quadraplex. It eliminates in its entirety the single family district and its intent, which reads: " miami-21 A.3.3.6 he single tantily residential district is intended to protect the lo\N, density residential and dominant tree Citnop) characteristics Of COCOnlit GrOVe and prevent the intrusion of additiown density., uses, and height, ". Indeed it is hard to imagine any proposal further removed from being directed toward those ends. The proposal before this commission sets forth sweeping regulations which constitute a brand new NCD, not an amendment, Miami-21 art 3.12,2,c sets forth the procedures required for designation, section 3 and 4 have not been performed, We oppose circumvention of the clear intent of Miami's zoning code by calling this an amendment when it is dearly something else. Section 4 of the designation procedure requires evidence that fifty-one (51) percent of the owners within the proposed boundary support the initiation of the NCD rezoning. Please show us that evidence. The planning department has thwarted actual significant public input. They started with an agenda. The repeated refusals by the planning department, to allow the various neighborhood associations to participate in a meaningful way in shaping this proposed amendment has effectively denied public input. They have selectively incorporated suggestions made by the many groups of citizens in such a way that they achieved the results they initially set out to achieve, Many residents are not even aware of this proposed and would object to it if it was written in plain language and it could be compared to the present NCD provisions, The Planning department has not allowed this comparison. Publishing the dates of workshops and hearings are not sufficient for such an important change in zoning. A neighborhood Conservation District is intended to preserve unique and distinctive neighborhoods. The Planning Departments Failure to enforce the existing code (. Respond to the Neighborhood context and Transco. /ono will not be remedied by this degislafion, Taken as a whole, the proposed tegislation does not accomplish that goal, We request that the commission not approve this proposal and direct the Planning Department to exercise the requirements of Design Review to ensure that plans be consistent with neighborhood norms in regard to size, height and mass of construction as well as greenspace •.-16 S,[ Memo to: City Commissioners Re PZ.9 file #3001 January 24, 2019 From: Dr. John Snyder, President South Grove Neighborhood Association Re. first reading of PZ,9 file #3001 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.9 . on 01/24/2019 , City Clerk The claimed Community input has been suppressed, discouraged and ignored. The evidence below documents only a small part or the efforts resident homeowners have undertaken to have meaningful input into this proposal. ostensibly meant to -improve- existing MD-3 and NCD-2 codes it would actually eliminate existing NCI) 2 and NCI) 3 codes entirely and substitute a code with less COMER VATION than the existing Miami-21 code fear NON- CONSERVATION areas. It started after the neighborhood began insisting that the provisions of NCI)-3 A.3.6 be enforced •Expressed Intent "The single family residential district is intended to protect the Low density residenti;i1 and dominant tree canopy characteristics of Coconut Groxe and prevent the intrusion of additional densitx, uses, and height:' • Critical Language NCD-3 A3,6.g. I Single fannly sites shall remain single family sites excepth warrant. l'his kinguage yei . clear io residents ',And to the 1 1"h circuit appeak" court. the),, used the ‘N'Ord Ob% isMS, but ir additional clarit. is needed. ruerel adding from the 11_000 code ( ()aside/04nm, inakini4 Npecini 'hymn (nos\ a svarrant ) e.ie(er ia/ions -The purpose of the special permit (read NN"arrant) shall he to enSure conformity ()Jibe application ;vitt: the expressed intent of this dislricf (Ord ,Vo, (A' 6 3 I , 3-28-91: ()i if, I 2-167 2, 12-18-03i Representatives or "NI. "D-2 supported our efforts and joined in insisting that provisions in their NCD- 2 code be enforced. • e-mails re suppressed connnunity input W:id:shop 1 0/ Ell 1 ik 0D: ?(0l 11111s,, ;Jacque:164e I Ci()od afternoon l.,(1.r.„ Snyder-. Stall' will:11ot be able to meet with yo11. prior to the Saturday meeting on October 14, 201'. in response to your voicemail about presenting information:, at this time the agenda is set by the City and time will notbe provide time for any outside presentations. There will he ,directional sign(s) indica.ting the location ()tthe ,multiparpose roona, :which is inside the building. Thank you.„ Jacqueline RE,: Miorkhop feet 1/27/18 File 11): 266 I Ellis, Jacqueline tau 22. 201 8, 9:25 AM Good afternoon Mr. SnyderIhe agenda is set and there ‘vill run be provided tiple for ()inside presentations, FloweVer, Mere will he trine fOr public continent and response alter C.ity presentations. Regards., Jacqueline (see reverse side), King v. City of -Coral Gables, 363 So.2(1389 in 192 (Fla. 3d DCA l978)„ Flolladay v., City of -Coral Gables, 182 So. 2d 92 - 1la: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist, 980 ▪ C ...it), Input red Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.9 on 01/24/2019 , City Clerk Minutes March 5th community organizations meet ing John Snyder <savethegrove16@g -Lail:x(3:i> Mon, Mar 12, 2018, 10:59 A,„tvi Attached are the Minutes of last Monday's March 5th Meeting (Summarized Below) Summary: Meeting of 6 neighborhood associations with City Planning 3 items resolved: • Participants vere asked if their membership would favor or not favor the 15(....) units density by raising hands: t„,,,Jnanittlausly, NO'IT IN Fay(ir • l'hey \were then asked about how th.eir membership vvou d feel about the rental units in. backyards: ,Majority NOT IN .Favor They were asked if ii favor Or riot in thvor of et, bining NCD-2 .and Inanimously N(1..)T in Favor, City Planning Reply, Mr. (auger, deputy planning director stated certain proposed. changes in the amendment would remain 1)VSPITE opposition: • Increased density M. 1 4 and 15 zoned areas but to a lesser maximum, (majority of sites in proposal t 150/acre) • the Lot diminishment (splitting) map (eliminating critical language and intent) • (7()I-nbinfin .N( :1)-2 and NCID-_ In summary: he consensus opinion, by the six neighborhood groups, was that there is no reason for the massive transfer of property rights from the current residents of Coconut Grove to the limited class of developers who have purchased property, with the speculative motive of making it uch more valuable to them, by changing existing code, up -zoning Coconut (,rove so that it may he developed to a much greater density and intensity.