Regarding this Saturday's NCD workshop

We applaud David Villano’s Cheat Sheet for Saturday’s NCD workshop. We asked that our Neighborhood Association be put on the agenda (15 minutes) for the first workshop and were denied. We asked to be on this Saturday’s agenda for 15 minutes, denied again. We asked the Planning and Zoning department to keep us abreast of their ideas for code change proposals, nada.  So much for public input. 

With regard to David’s item “3. Lot splitting. Can building sites containing more than one platted lot be  subdivided and developed? If so, under what conditions?” 

The single family residential lot splitting issue about which there is much concern is covered in NCD-3 code which is written in plain language, protects and pertains to the predominantly single family residential areas of the Grove. It is a short, easily read & understood; a 7 page section of code, pages A-15 thru A-21. On p. A-18 of Mia-21 appendix A  http://www.miami21.org/PDFs/Appendix/Miami_21_Appendix_A_May_2015.pdf ,: "3.6.G.1 Wherever an existing single-family residence or lawful accessory building(s) or structure(s) is located on one or more platted lots or portions thereof, such lots shall thereafter constitute only one building site and no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one single-family residence except by Warrant..." When our NCD-3 code was written the above section was lifted from the Coral Gables code. About this language the 3rd district court of appeals said in 1978 “The obvious intent of the Ordinance was to prevent developers, etc., from coming into Coral Gables, tearing down existing residences on large lots, and then building more residences on smaller lots.”  Here is the citation link:  No. 79-995. 

Of course for every rule there are exceptions, the NCD-3 code has warrants to deal with exceptional circumstances, Coral Gables has a conditional use permit to deal with exceptions. In an interview with Ramon Trias the Planning and Zoning director for Coral Gables he informed me that they have about one such permit application per year and not all of them are approved. In NCD-3, about 1/3 the size of the Gables, we have had 5 applications for Warrants to subdivide in 12 years; 2 have been denied the other 3 are still being processed. And as many readers know, there were some cases in last few years where sites were improperly divided by circumventing the code, absent a warrant, which caused much uproar & concern. Owners are not entitled to a warrant. Our existing criteria for approving a warrant require consideration of the underlying transect code intent, in the case of the single-Family district, that is “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.”    On p. 17 sect. 3.6 Single-Family Residential District. 
 http://www.miami21.org/PDFs/Appendix/Miami_21_Appendix_A_May_2015.pdf 

This all seems pretty clear to me; the nearly identical code has worked efficiently, for the last 40 years, in Coral Gables. Under our existing criteria no warrant should be approved if it increases existing density, diminishes tree canopy, or increases height. A possible clarification with regard to density might say “Density is measured by the number of single-family residences allowed on an existing site, two is greater than one and is therefore an increase.” We suggest that the people who are confused about this part of the code are those who wish the code said something else. 

Mr. Villano’s description and critique of items 4, 5, and 6 are great. 

With regard to item 2 Tree Canopy. This is a big challenge. Unfortunately there are many ways for trees to be killed, if that is what is wanted.  In order to protect our canopy from over-development it is imperative for development sites to keep enough actual open space for canopy trees to grow and thrive. This WAS & IS A major Rationale, of our tropical area’s NCD Code, to keep the tree canopied nature and character OF THE GROVE. As the community is NOT severed into ever shrinking building sites the canopy WILL NOT be destroyed. Our canopy will be renewed. And the significantly large trees, many decades old, will be less threatened or destroyed. In as much as the existing protective NCD code is enforced, so will the canopy be maintained.  

Item 1 is a step in the right direction but only a first step. Scale is a function of the size of the lot, the size and configuration of the House and the environment. The Planning and Zoning Director is already supposed to conduct a design review for every residence in Miami, Art. 4 table 12, which has as an element that the design should be compatible with the neighborhood context. This is currently done very poorly, there is absolutely no consideration of relative scale of the design with surrounding properties. Instead of looking at the lot size of property within a 500’ circumference why not look at either Lot/Building ratios or its reciprocal FAR. Set an objective standard, the ratio cannot exceed some percentage for example: 100% of average building size of similarly sized lots or 125% if the residences is to be 2 story.

Developers have deep pockets and wield tremendous influence over politicians who “need” campaign funds. They often influence city officials through various devices, creating a situation where vague and conflicting criteria are used creates a situation ripe for corruption. What has been proposed so far for NCD-3 does exactly that. 

In conclusion I am reluctant to attend Saturday’s workshop as it appears to be a cynical attempt on the part of the city Planning and Zoning Department to claim public input and support for their plans to assist developers to create building sites in violation of existing law.  

John Snyder
South Grove Neighborhood Association