[4:58] Mr. Al-Tabe,

[5:08] Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor,

[5:17] Mr.

[5:21] Peña,

[5:24] Mr. Torrance, Mr. Badeel, Mr. Ziegler,

[5:32] Mr. Garabadia, we have quorum.

[5:37] Thank you. Do we have any members who have requested and waiver perhaps tonight?

[5:41] Yes. Can we get a motion to excuse anyone who's out tonight?

[5:50] Thank you.

[5:54] Can I get a motion on the minutes from March 26?

[5:59] Motion by Mr. Paris.

[6:01] Second, Mr. Gerston.

[6:03] All those in favor say aye.

[6:05] Thank you.

[6:07] Can we swear on the public please?

[6:10] Anybody who intends to testify, please stand.

[6:13] Raise your right hand.

[6:18] These were, or firm, that testimony you're about to give,

[6:20] is the truth, the truth, and nothing but truth.

[6:22] Thank you.

[6:29] Do we have any changes to tonight's agenda?

[6:35] We have a couple requests to move some of the items that are being proposed for the city.

[6:42] Hold on, second.

[6:42] I have another set of minutes in front of me.

[6:44] March 21st.

[6:45] I need to get those approved as well.

[6:47] Yes.

[6:47] So can I get the same motion in second?

[6:49] March 21st.

[6:52] So all those in favor say aye.

[6:55] Thank you.

[6:56] Sorry to interrupt.

[6:56] Go ahead, please.

[6:56] I'm sorry.

[6:59] PZ, AB, Item number 3, File ID 24, 29.

[7:05] It's a text amendment.

[7:08] And the city's requesting to move that item to June 6, 2018.

[7:14] Is there anyone in the public who'd like to speak on this item relative to the city's request to change the day?

[7:21] Seeing none, bringing back to the board for a motion?

[7:24] So move to the day of June 6th.

[7:31] June 6th.

[7:31] Do we have a second?

[7:32] Second.

[7:33] All of us in favour, please say aye.

[7:36] Thank you.

[7:37] We have another request for PZAB.

[7:40] Item number 4.

[7:41] File ID 3730.

[7:43] This is a tax amendment for the NCD.

[7:47] And the request is to move this to May 18th, 2018.

[7:53] Excuse me.

[7:54] May 16th.

[7:58] May 16th, I apologize, April 18th, the next PCAB meeting, April 18th, April 18th.

[8:09] Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment that item relative to the change of date?

[8:16] Yes, sir.

[8:22] This item is essentially a continuation of the item that came before this board in July 29th of this year.

[8:32] This would make the fifth continuance of this.

[8:35] We have been to four previous board meetings.

[8:41] We have been to three workshops, we have, at the last meeting, we are directed to have a meeting with the planning board, which we have done, or the planning deputy director, which we have done, and we want to address this tonight.

[9:01] We have many people who are coming, there are many people who are here.

[9:07] How many people are here for PZAB4 right now,

[9:15] quite a few, and more are coming because

[9:18] it's PZAB4, so we expected that it would be sometime after 7.30, there are more people

[9:24] coming.

[9:26] Got it.

[9:26] Anyone else would like to speak on the city's request to change the date?

[9:33] Seeing none, city, can you tell us again why you'd like the date changed?

[9:39] We've continued to work with the constituents.

[9:42] There are some items that we've actually had to revise and want to make sure that we are

[9:47] able to incorporate everything, including some new diagrams for the next meeting.

[9:51] We would not be opposed to having this heard as a discussion item, but we'd like to refrain

[9:57] from having a recommendation put on this evening as there are some substantial changes that

[10:03] we'd like to have prepared and ready for the next meeting.

[10:07] I don't bring it back to the board.

[10:08] I'll just, let me just throw my two cents out there.

[10:12] I'm not inclined to make it a discussion item,

[10:15] just because I imagine when this item comes before us in a week or two,

[10:19] we're going to have similar commentary.

[10:23] But that's just my opinion,

[10:25] but I will not argue the point if my board wishes to make it a discussion item

[10:29] or here at tonight.

[10:30] Mr. Gerson.

[10:31] Yeah, I kind of have the opposite view, I think, you know, to Mr. Snyder's point, all of these meetings, workshops are, I think, a response to the neighborhoods response to the issues we keep seeing.

[10:48] I think if there are still more discussions to be had, we should continue to have them because it's a very active community.

[10:55] and this is an opportunity and they're here.

[10:57] So I would be interested in seeing this,

[11:00] who does a discussion item.

[11:03] Any other comments?

[11:04] I would very definitely like to hear it as a discussion item as well.

[11:07] I think we've got a lot of people here at the board.

[11:10] The staff would get a lot more input.

[11:12] I know we have Jeremy here tonight.

[11:14] We'll be taking notes to get even more input from the Royal Vice.

[11:20] Any other comments?

[11:23] I feel the same.

[11:24] Do we need to vote on it, or I can just say we're going to hear this as a discussion item?

[11:32] You would need to make a vote on it, make a motion, and have a vote.

[11:35] I would make that motion.

[11:36] So we have, well, quickly, please.

[11:42] We have minutes of the meeting where six of the Neighborhood Associations met with the deputy director.

[11:51] and we ask for five specific things, none of them got into the proposal, not one.

[12:01] Many of the people are here tonight.

[12:04] We do have the minutes.

[12:06] So we have a motion.

[12:08] Good afternoon.

[12:09] My concern, and this is to staff,

[12:13] I heard that there are significant changes.

[12:18] are there significant changes that I, while I understand that the folks in front of us are

[12:26] well versed on what is going on in their neighborhood and I do understand that. My concern

[12:32] is are we discussing what the final version that has significant changes, as this gentleman

[12:39] just said, there has been five requests that are currently not in the legislation. So, is that

[12:47] or any part of that going to be added to the version

[12:50] that we will be seeing on April 18th.

[12:54] So we did incorporate some comments.

[12:56] I don't know if there are 100% in the way they asked,

[13:00] but I think we've incorporated some comments.

[13:04] That being said, the changes that are probably

[13:07] that are going to be between what is published now

[13:11] and what we would like to actually have be voted on

[13:16] are some significant technical differences,

[13:19] there's some significant formatting differences

[13:22] and incorporating diagrams into the document

[13:26] rather than making reference to them.

[13:29] So they're mostly technical matters,

[13:32] but it's enough information that we would want to keep it

[13:39] and actually vote on the version that's published

[13:42] that's much more accurate.

[13:46] When the neighbors are commenting today, it's fairly, it's fair to say that the version that you're presenting on the 18th is just technicalities, but still true to what they're commenting today.

[14:03] I would say that's fair.

[14:05] Thank you.

[14:07] Mr. Gersham, you have a motion to hear this item.

[14:10] As a discussion item tonight.

[14:11] Yes. Second by Mr. Parrish.

[14:14] Hold those in favor say aye.

[14:16] I just have a quick question.

[14:18] Does that motion specific to that date of April 18th?

[14:22] I'm just concerned that a lot of discussion that'll happen here,

[14:27] that that may not be enough time,

[14:29] and that given that this has been continued a couple times,

[14:33] is everyone comfortable that two weeks is enough?

[14:38] I think that gives us enough time to make any changes

[14:41] that based on discussion tonight and to incorporate our technical changes.

[14:48] I would just hate to have another group come out, the 18th and we're still not there.

[14:55] Okay.

[14:56] Now, and we're motivated to move forward for the reasons of Mr. Snyder.

[15:00] And others? We don't think that we'll be enough time because they're not even on the right track.

[15:10] They are so far off track that I think it would be completely impossible.

[15:19] However, we do have an alternate proposal, which we would like to present tonight, and I think that could be accomplished rather quickly.

[15:33] Is there any more changes tonight to agenda?

[15:36] Excuse me.

[15:37] If I may.

[15:38] We've already.

[15:39] Yes.

[15:39] Is which item are you coming forward?

[15:41] He's the item.

[15:42] We've already voted.

[15:43] Mr.

[15:44] Is there another change?

[15:46] EDAB.

[15:47] You'll have time.

[15:48] When does item come to force tonight?

[15:50] I'm saying that this has been very rushed.

[15:51] I own three properties in the Grove.

[15:53] We're not going to take any action on tonight for you.

[15:57] And you'll have time to come back and provide you.

[16:01] Yes, ma'am.

[16:02] So, PZAB5, file ID 3848, it's another text amendment, and we're requesting to have this move to May 16th.

[16:14] Is there anyone here on item number five that would like to comment on the city's request to change the day?

[16:21] Seeing none, bringing back to the board? Motion?

[16:24] Motion.

[16:25] So, move Mr. Chairman.

[16:27] PZAB5 to May 16th.

[16:29] Hold those in favor say aye.

[16:31] Aye.

[16:32] Aye. Thank you.

[16:33] And I believe there is an applicant who would like to request the continuance for item PZAB 1 and 2.

[16:41] Anyone here on items 1 and 2?

[16:44] Good afternoon.

[16:45] Seas are necessary.

[16:46] Laws is at 7600 West 20th Avenue, Highly Afforda.

[16:50] That is correct.

[16:51] On PZAB 1 and 2, I have with me the owners of the property, Mr. Mr.

[16:56] Little, and the architect for the property, Mr. Rick Ruiz.

[17:01] We're asking that this item be deferred to the May 16th meeting.

[17:06] The reason is Mr. Ruiz was just recently retained on this matter.

[17:11] He's a new consultant.

[17:12] He has gone through the recommendations and reports.

[17:15] We have identified some inconsistencies in the reports which we'd like to discuss with staff.

[17:21] I know he communicated with staff recently trying to address those prior to the hearing,

[17:26] but the gentleman that's been handling it and staff has been on vacation.

[17:30] I understand we probably will be able to set up meetings next week so we're asking that we

[17:35] be allowed to come back on May 16th.

[17:40] So that's on both of those items.

[17:42] That's great.

[17:43] And between now and then are you going to make sure when we ask you if you reach out to the neighbors

[17:46] and have feedback, you're going to be able to tell us, yes, we'll be back.

[17:50] We actually have potential that have been signed.

[17:53] We've taken care of that.

[17:55] Is city any objection to the request?

[17:58] We are ready to present if you like staff to present.

[18:02] However, the city's request would be that if this was going to be

[18:06] a continuum that's granted, that you may want to consider

[18:10] another date as there are, if this item sent to the 16th,

[18:14] you'll have nine items to listen to that evening.

[18:19] What's the agenda for June 6th is a lot lighter?

[18:22] June 6th, that worked for your client.

[18:24] That would be fine.

[18:26] June 6th.

[18:27] Do we have anyone else who'd like to speak on this item?

[18:30] Relative to the date change?

[18:32] To the date change?

[18:33] Sir, sir, you need to come to the microphone and give us your name and address.

[18:36] Take your time.

[18:49] Better at 32.65.

[18:50] Call a Kuchy Street.

[18:52] I just want to find out what property they're talking about right now.

[18:55] Ask the gentleman behind you.

[19:03] Just answer the question on the microphone, sir.

[19:08] 1015 Southwest 29th Avenue.

[19:12] That's all I want to know.

[19:12] Thank you.

[19:14] Okay, do we have a motion to the June 6th?

[19:19] I'll make a motion.

[19:21] To move item 1 and 2 to June 6th.

[19:27] So we have a motion and a second for both items.

[19:31] Holders in favor say aye.

[19:32] All right.

[19:33] Make sure the neighbors, you get the conversation with them.

[19:36] Yes, thank you very much.

[19:37] Thank you.

[19:41] So we'll proceed.

[20:13] Mr. Chair.

[20:14] We would like to begin by having or start by having public comment.

[20:21] If we're going.

[20:22] Are we sure?

[20:23] How best are we going to have, I guess, confidence that as people come up and say,

[20:28] I don't like item B that there's going to be an opportunity where the city comes back and says,

[20:35] you know, item B is not going to happen or item B is going to change.

[20:42] I really don't want to have everyone talk.

[20:44] I just want to make sure there's a connection of the dots when the gentleman says,

[20:48] hey, you have not addressed his five points.

[20:50] I don't know if the best way is you to come up after each person who speaks,

[20:54] or wait till the end since we have a lot of folks.

[20:56] I don't know, I'd rather see some back and forth with the city when these folks come up.

[21:04] And if someone's being saying the same thing that the previous person said, you could just

[21:09] say, hey, refer to the previous speaker, but I want a little back and forth so people

[21:14] can hear what the city's opinion is on what they say.

[21:17] That's what that is.

[21:18] All right, that's fine.

[21:19] So, Mr. Chair, just for clarity, did you want to continue how we normally have a two minute?

[21:24] Yes.

[21:24] So we're going to have folks come to either podium and the city can use the podium off to the side if they want.

[21:32] Make sure you give us your name and address two minutes.

[21:37] Try to get right to the question you have with the feedback you have.

[21:42] And then let the city respond and see if we can get everyone an opportunity to speak.

[21:48] either microphone. Yes, sir.

[21:55] Hold on, sir. Hold on. Do we need to read this item in?

[22:07] Resolution of the planning zoning and appeals board, recommending approval or denial of an

[22:12] ordinance of the Miami City Commission, amending ordinance number 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, the zoning

[22:19] ordinance of the city of Miami, Florida, as amended to amend the Pundit's A entitled neighborhood

[22:25] conservation districts, replacing section A2, village west island district and Charles Avenue

[22:33] and CD2 and section A3 entitled coconut grove, neighborhood conservation district and CD3

[22:40] with new regulations, standards and guidelines for future development within the coconut grove

[22:46] neighborhood conservation district. So we will now continue with the discussion item. Yes, sir.

[22:54] Praise the Lord Jesus because he's worthy to be praised and if you don't agree, remain silent and if you do, you can say amen.

[23:02] My name is William Zelford, I live at 3260 Thomas Avenue.

[23:07] And I'm concerned that this being a meeting sanctioned by the city of Miami was not on the city of Miami, a official site for a review prior to this meeting.

[23:18] And so is this meeting sanctioned by the City of Miami and if it is, why wasn't that listed on the City of Miami official site?

[23:26] That's what I'd like to know.

[23:28] The City Attorney, could you address the question?

[23:33] Are you saying it wasn't listed on where?

[23:36] I'm saying,

[23:38] I'm saying that it is not listed on the City of Miami official site being held today at this time.

[23:47] That's what I'm saying.

[23:48] I just, just from my perspective, I went to the city website today and downloaded the agenda

[23:52] and this item was on it.

[23:56] So, what then happened today?

[23:57] I don't know.

[23:58] So, our belief in knowledge, it was properly, notice, and it was on the...

[24:04] It is on the...

[24:05] Yes?

[24:05] Okay, well, I checked where I had to come in here and I didn't see it.

[24:10] So I'll go back home and I'll return if I do find it and get some more information on what

[24:16] We are addressing this evening and I thank you so very much for your time.

[24:19] Thank you.

[24:20] Thank you, sir.

[24:22] If there are no other speakers out close, let's line up behind each of these two podiums.

[24:28] We're going to alternate back and forth.

[24:37] So there's only one, two, three more speakers.

[24:39] Have to, did I say here?

[24:45] Thank you.

[25:10] You know, Mr. Chairman.

[25:13] Mr. Garston, I'm sorry.

[25:16] Quick question, would it be OK if before the general back and forth starts that we, in a clear, simple list, understand what the five points are, so that we could be listening sort of for those things.

[25:34] So I'm not sure I heard it. The five pointer is a universal statement.

[25:38] I wasn't sure.

[25:39] One gentleman, I'm sure when he comes up he's going to go through it.

[25:43] And if we see it happening with repeats, I want us to see it to go over it again.

[25:51] That's okay.

[25:53] Good.

[25:53] Yes, ma'am.

[25:58] We're sorry.

[25:58] Ozele, 4191, Bergenza Avenue.

[26:01] I'm here today to speak on the item specifically with regards to sections 3.14, the public benefits section.

[26:08] I don't believe it should be part of the CED revision.

[26:11] and doing so, it crams too much into a section of code that has a specific intent to minimize

[26:17] not maximize density and maintain the scale and character of the unit that's unique to

[26:23] coconut grove.

[26:25] I know it got into this NCD workshop, due to the workshops that were held, but I really,

[26:31] I know it's an important thing that needs to go into the code, but just not into the NCD code.

[26:36] I'm going to see the balance of my time to Joe Hanabran.

[26:44] I'm going to make some general comments about NCDs, and in specific, towards the FLR recommendations

[26:50] in the code.

[26:52] I think it's crucial at this point in time that we take a step back and remember why we're all

[26:56] here, and that's we're trying to improve our NCD.

[27:00] But what's an NCD, and then trying to better understand the NCD, a founder's document that

[27:03] is handed to you, it's a thesis from Max Yestern of Columbia University on neighborhood conservation

[27:10] districts. And in that, yes, since the states that NCDs are tools that were first put

[27:16] to use in 1975 in Boston, Massachusetts, it says an attempt to have a let's strict form

[27:21] of historic preservation. Then these existing historic districts, their use has grown dramatically

[27:26] over the decades. And as of 2011, over 96 cities and 34 states employ the use of NCDs,

[27:33] Yes, and attributes the reasons for this dramatic increase to what is referred to as the

[27:37] tear-down trend, the practice of demolishing a small house on a valuable lot and

[27:42] supplanting it with a significantly bulkier home.

[27:45] The result is oversized houses that distort a neighborhood's architectural character,

[27:49] reduce livability, and decrease in areas economic and social diversity.

[27:54] Yes, then goes further, an NCD is a manifestation of a community that wishes to maintain

[27:58] a sense of local spatial familiarity and legibility, whether this stems from an area of

[28:04] physicality, street layout, building scale, or a shared sense of identity in history,

[28:09] and what is referring to as a sense of place, and the NCD tool is the tool that tries to

[28:14] preserve a sense of place, and that's what we're trying to do here in the grove.

[28:18] So what is that in the grove, it's say predominant tree canopy, and one of the reasons

[28:22] the tree canopy in the grove is so predominant is because the houses are not.

[28:26] And to understand what we're trying to preserve, I did a random survey amongst several streets in coconut grove to establish a baseline FAR and I use that term loosely, it's a square footage of the house versus the square footage of the lot ratio amongst existing housing stock.

[28:43] Lots and streets were chosen at random and each street contained between 10 to 13 houses.

[28:48] On Battersy Road, the average FAR is 27% on Crawford Road, 26% on Cumquat, it's 27% on Charles

[28:57] Avenue, it's 30% on Inagua Avenue, it's 32% Kirk Street, 24% and Amathla, 18%.

[29:05] Lot sizes less than, if you break it, and a lot sizes less than 7,500 square feet, the

[29:11] average FAR is 34%.

[29:13] a lot sizes from 7,500 to 10,000, it's 28% and 10,000 to 20,000, it's 19%.

[29:20] And just as a comparison to what has driven this whole thing is these white boxes we all keep hearing about,

[29:25] I did an average of about 10 of those, the average, your build being 2015 and found an average of a or 51%.

[29:33] So it begs the question that inside the new draft,

[29:40] the recommended FLR, 50%.

[29:42] percent.

[29:42] Mammy need to in conclusion.

[29:44] Okay.

[29:44] Sorry.

[29:45] With a bonus of 50 percent, are we preserving the physicality in the building scale of

[29:50] coconut grove and it doesn't appear that we are.

[29:53] And I believe if we reduce that FLR in the below 50 percent, we can allow the coverage

[29:59] to be-

[30:00] Major, but we need to get the stale of the building smaller, and I don't think that's what we're doing here. We don't need the same scales, 1945, but we need to get it lower than 50, because what 50 looks like is not.

[30:12] So, city, do you want to have a comment on the FLR? Question?

[30:17] So currently the base allowed is 50% covered well currently under current code is 80%

[30:26] basically by default 50% ground level 30% second level which has led to I'm quite surprised that you're finding an FAR number of 50% for those

[30:38] the and I don't know if it's a lot coverage or well you know it's hard because it's

[30:43] So I suspect that's more like a lot coverage and it's not taking into account the second level because I think what has been getting built is that 80%

[30:54] Absolutely maxed out

[30:56] And so what we're proposing is pushing that down to 50% maxed out, which is a 30% reduction, I mean, this is a significant reduction

[31:06] But, and I think this is where a lot of the discomfort that we're going to hear from is that we're allowing you to get 15% of that back by planting significant trees between the street and the building.

[31:22] So even with that 15% back, it's still a 15% reduction compared to what's allowed currently.

[31:30] And we feel the city, we feel like that is a good compromise, particularly when it's paired with, you know, significant, the screening tree size is 10 inch DBH.

[31:42] This is above and beyond what would be required, which is actually 2 inch DBH.

[31:49] So the idea is if the concern is tree canopy, and if the concern is the feel of the massing of these structures in the neighborhood,

[31:59] that we can address that by allowing this point 1-5 increase by effectively screening them

[32:08] and gaining some of the tree canopy back that we've lost.

[32:12] So that's the logic.

[32:13] You know, it would be helpful if the city maybe could do some sort of like studies,

[32:18] examples of, you know, with the new restrictions.

[32:22] Let's just say somebody wanted to max out, you know, what would that building look like

[32:27] when you're driving down the street, what would be the square footage?

[32:29] The adjusted square footage at the end of the day, if they, you know,

[32:33] because I feel like it's a little bit of a showgain sometimes

[32:36] when you talk about lock coverage and then FALR and, you know,

[32:40] it gets for the average person, it gets confusing to be able to translate that

[32:43] into what does the building look like at the end of the day?

[32:47] Like, I don't know, it would be helpful.

[32:49] All right. Thank you. Yes, sir.

[32:52] Good evening. My name is Rick Selman.

[32:53] I live at 3, 5, 3, 6 St. Guards, Routing Coconut Grove.

[32:57] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Board for letting me speak tonight.

[33:01] First of all, I'd like to say that I'm here on behalf of myself, my family,

[33:04] and also the St. Guards, Routing Neighborhood Conservation Association.

[33:11] Firstly, we endorse what Ms. Brown said.

[33:15] Second of all, the 12th Warehouse clause in the proposal that came out Friday

[33:20] It says, whereas the proposed regulations use restrictions on ancillary dwelling units, which will

[33:26] help to increase housing affordability by increasing housing stock while maintaining

[33:31] neighborhood character.

[33:34] During public presentations, no mention was made of any studies or research that supports

[33:39] the conclusion that ancillary dwelling units will maintain neighborhood character.

[33:45] This assertion is subject to challenge and is hard to justify unless site-specific research

[33:50] has been undertaken in Coconut Grove.

[33:53] Now where in Section 2.1, Purpose and Intent provisions is there any mention of the conflicting

[33:58] impact of Ancillary Dwelling units to the unique single-family neighborhoods of Coconut Grove.

[34:06] Now where is there any mention that it is the Purpose and Intent of these provisions to provide

[34:12] the alleged affordable housing at the expense of, quote, unique, single-family neighborhoods?

[34:17] This is an attempt to essentially create two-plex lots on single-family lots, which are there today,

[34:24] which happened there for as we know, 50, 60, and 70 years.

[34:28] Why should an answer to every dwelling unit speak permitted as a matter of right, as they

[34:32] will increase parking needs, and could also include a garage in addition to the 450 square

[34:38] foot unit, and substantially increased density in the single-family districts?

[34:43] That seems to contradict the history and description on page 27 of the proposal that states quote

[34:50] This document establishes boundaries and functions of an overlay to provide an additional level of protection in the unique area.

[35:01] I have a lot more and I know I realize I'm out of time and I don't want to take more time than I should.

[35:06] So what I'm going to do when I finish with this is I will pass this memo out. I'll give a copy to the staff.

[35:11] I'm also attempting to address, generally speaking, the splitting of existing single-family

[35:17] home sites as well.

[35:18] But thank you for the opportunity to be here.

[35:20] Staff, do you have any comments?

[35:21] Sure.

[35:22] So, I want to return a couple of steps back to talk a little bit about the big picture and

[35:28] tense of preserving a sense of place and what the NCD is there for.

[35:34] So, a big part of that, it trees drove this, right, I mean, it really did from the beginning.

[35:42] And I think what we found out very, very quickly in our public meetings is that the place is also the people,

[35:50] and that there was equally large push and support to do everything we could to encourage affordability in the NCD as well.

[35:59] So a lot of what we're pushing for is these two things,

[36:04] these preserving the physical character of coconut growth,

[36:08] and preserving the people and historically

[36:12] at a affordable neighborhood that's coconut growth.

[36:15] So the ADUs are an attempt to do both of those things.

[36:21] There are a number of historic homes in the growth that

[36:25] corporate carriages. We did not do a comprehensive survey of the carriages of coconut

[36:33] growth, but they are certainly commonplace on properties in coconut growth. Furthermore,

[36:41] they are common through other parts of the city as well. It is something that is sort of

[36:45] in the character of Miami in general.

[36:49] So the ADU in that it's 450 square feet, it's limited to 450 square feet, and I think one of Mr. Snyder's comments that we partially addressed.

[37:03] We took a lot of the things that he recommended, and we incorporated a portion, was we limited them now to only properties of greater than 7500 square feet.

[37:15] You're a lot coverage, everything else, you still have to abide by, so these are probably not going to be built on a lot of existing properties, but if somebody wants to incorporate one on a new property they can.

[37:29] We feel like it's a form of affordability without forcing it without forcing a subsidy or anything just by the nature of it being 450 square feet.

[37:38] So that's one of the real targets there, and we do feel like it's in keeping with the historical character of the Grove.

[37:48] Yeah, I say, I think that's it for now.

[37:51] One quick.

[37:52] Look, let's be candid.

[37:54] The South Grove hasn't been affordable in 40 years.

[37:57] And bringing down property values by increasing urban density is just plain stupid.

[38:09] Thank you, John Snyder.

[38:12] Our code at present is based on the code that Carl Gables has, which has been tested for 38 years.

[38:21] It works in Carl Gables.

[38:24] I'm going to give you an overview of this proposal.

[38:27] The proposed changes in this amendment,

[38:29] ostensibly designed to reduce confusion about Warren criteria.

[38:34] That's how it started, because the only way that these sites can be divided is by Warren.

[38:39] have taken on a life of their own.

[38:42] Taken as a whole, it's a proposal to transfer property rights

[38:46] from the residents to speculators, obscuring the intent

[38:50] of the neighborhood conservation district.

[38:52] This amendment would eliminate in its entirety

[38:55] the single-family district.

[38:59] Critical to any suburb in neighborhood.

[39:02] How can that contribute to conservation?

[39:04] The amendment calls for massive upzoning in every transect of coconut grove, upzoning

[39:11] disguised as incentive programs, sale of development rights, and public benefits program.

[39:19] But upzoning it is, single family sites become duplex, duplex sites become quadriplex.

[39:26] T-4 gets the density of T-5, and T-6 gets, excuse me, T-5 gets T-6 density.

[39:36] Developers who purchase rights get a pass to overdevelop in some other area, just say no.

[39:43] The Planning Department has made a charade of public input.

[39:47] The repeated refusals by the Planning Department to allow the various neighborhood associations

[39:52] to participate in any meaningful way in shaping this proposed amendment as effectively

[39:58] divide, denied, public input. We have minutes of the meeting that we have with them. There

[40:05] were five needs that were expressed at that meeting by the Sixth Neighborhood Association.

[40:11] A solution, first, a solution to the decay and condemnation of housing through neglect

[40:17] in the NCD2 West Grove.

[40:23] Separate NCD2 and NCD3 districts provide a much better vehicle to bring affordable housing to those residents and former residents of Isling West Grove, which is by residents choice, a prospective CRA area.

[40:40] Number two, maintaining the single-family district intent, criteria for a warrant, and language

[40:49] on lots splitting, are all necessary to preserve the tree canopy, nature, and character

[40:55] of the neighborhood, height, and mass limits, as was pointed out earlier, which are reasonable

[41:04] and consistent with existing development. Design review criteria has a line in there that says

[41:11] they're supposed to be. So let's get through 3, 4, and 5 so I could have a

[41:15] height mass height mass length. 4 is site size is in accord with septic health requirements

[41:24] in specific areas. The state requires a maximum of four dwelling units per acre, per net acre,

[41:33] net of streets or the county requires 15,000 square foot building sites.

[41:39] These need to be enforced.

[41:41] It's a health issue, number five, design review, appropriate to NCD2 and NCD3, including

[41:50] building size and mass relative to surroundings need to be employed.

[41:56] All of these issues were unanimously supported.

[41:59] We got to show our hands.

[42:00] So I'm not going to stop you now.

[42:03] So let's hear the city's answer.

[42:05] You can stay right there and let's hear how

[42:08] we go through on one, two, five.

[42:10] So on the issue of splitting NCD, two and three,

[42:15] the bulk of the questions that they really

[42:17] wanted is to address are not things

[42:18] that are addressed through land use regulations.

[42:21] They have to be in conjunction with,

[42:24] or it's sort of a housing authority or a housing department

[42:28] issues that can be addressed.

[42:30] We can only do so much with the housing with the land use regulations where we can mandate

[42:38] subsidies, that sort of thing.

[42:41] So with that being said, I do think we have strengthened quite a bit of and we heard quite

[42:47] a bit about how the NCD2 needed to be beefed up and how it needed additional protections

[42:52] and we've actually incorporated that.

[42:55] So while we didn't address 100% of the concerns,

[43:00] we certainly did address a number of them.

[43:02] On the issue of up zoning, obviously there is no change in actual zoning.

[43:08] Now I understand the argument that it's effectively changing zoning,

[43:13] but I do disagree to some degree.

[43:17] We did address some of the concerns that we brought up in the meeting

[43:23] about the increase in density for T4, we actually push that back down.

[43:30] We do think having the density increase that's only available for purposes of affordable housing.

[43:38] That's the only way anybody can avail themselves of this.

[43:42] Those are where the reasons to allow some increase in density.

[43:47] So it doesn't affect building volume, it doesn't affect massing of the building,

[43:51] It doesn't affect the zoning of the building, but it does affect how many units they can put in the same building, so the idea is you can if you have more units in same building, they're smaller, they're more affordable.

[44:03] And again, those bonuses are only available when they're providing affordable or low income units on site.

[44:11] So, and then in terms of height and mass, you know, that's what we're doing with the basic

[44:18] diminishment down the 50 percent, sorry, the 30 percent or 15 percent reduction, depending

[44:25] on the trees.

[44:29] So regarding design review, we've expanded the purview of design review for West Grove, which

[44:36] currently only applies to Charles Avenue. It now applies both to the other two districts

[44:45] importing mostly with Douglas and Grand Avenue within the West Grove. Sorry, and then

[44:52] a lot of diminishment we've actually did incorporate the bulk of the requested changes for that as well.

[45:01] Obviously not to Mr. Snyder's satisfaction. But again, I think we did compromise and we made changes based on all of their recommendations.

[45:13] Each time, with each revision that they made, the proposal became worse.

[45:18] It went from being 50 percent, a lot coverage at first or 50 percent floor lot ratio, then it went to 65.

[45:29] If you look at it carefully now, you'll see that it's 75.

[45:34] It's a hold on.

[45:35] What is your feedback on that?

[45:37] It is not 75.

[45:39] It's a table.

[45:41] It's 73.

[45:42] Sorry, let me clarify.

[45:43] Okay. The T30, which is the duplex zones, is 75.

[45:49] Base.

[45:50] In the table, it says, I think it's table four dash,

[45:54] I forget which table it is.

[45:57] But if you add up the bonuses and the percentage, it's 75%.

[46:03] Okay, I can help with this one because that was something that was confusing

[46:09] and that we've actually removed a line.

[46:12] What it was trying to convey is that there's design flexibility.

[46:16] Like if you want to do 25%, 25%, you're allowed to do that.

[46:21] There wasn't a restriction on that second level

[46:25] that would only total up to 0.5.

[46:30] So we've actually clarified that.

[46:32] That was something that was quite confusing

[46:35] with the first floor, second floor coverage.

[46:40] So I think we've, on the latest version,

[46:42] we're just removing a line,

[46:44] which actually clears that up.

[46:46] The maximums were always the same as stated at 0.5.

[46:53] So how this got started was the NCD2 district

[46:59] in three blocks in the NCD2 district.

[47:02] There have been demolitions, condemnations of property that was, let me just...

[47:08] The deteriorated.

[47:09] Have you sat down with City on this?

[47:11] Yes.

[47:11] Yes, we have.

[47:13] And you feel that they've at least listened?

[47:15] They have listened.

[47:17] They have listened and they have shown that they are going to do what they want to do, not what

[47:22] the neighborhood wants them to do.

[47:25] So it's just straightforward, they are on the wrong track.

[47:29] So, in regard to the affordable housing, there are three blocks, the 3,334,3,500 blocks of

[47:39] Grand Avenue, where a lot of people have been displaced because of the demolition.

[47:46] And we do think that there is a need and a public benefit to have affordable housing.

[47:52] However, that doesn't mean that you should have it throughout all of Coconut Grove.

[47:58] because most of the coconut grove, the people are affluent.

[48:04] Their property is one of their major assets.

[48:07] If you have affordable housing throughout coconut grove,

[48:12] the prices of housing will go down. That's what affordable housing is.

[48:18] We think it's necessary in those three blocks, perhaps some other areas?

[48:23] All right, I'll give you a minute.

[48:24] I'll give you a minute.

[48:25] Yes, sir.

[48:27] So Scott Silver, 2980 McFarlane Road.

[48:30] I'm here as the chairman of the Cuckon Growth Business

[48:32] Improvement District Planning and Infrastructure Committee.

[48:35] We've spent years going through planning and designing

[48:38] and coming up with the different components of how we're

[48:41] going to redesign the core and the center of the grove.

[48:43] And some of those have been implemented,

[48:45] but we recently retained plus Serbia.

[48:47] That a few months ago came up with a master plan

[48:49] and had dozens of different recommendations

[48:51] and there is to how we would incorporate zoning code, planning code, building code provisions

[48:56] in order to come up with a good model ordinance that would affect the commercial.

[48:59] I'm not here to comment on the residential side.

[49:01] I think many of these meetings, many of the workshops we're dealing with the residential,

[49:05] and I believe it was March 16th.

[49:08] The city came to the Business Improvement District and told us that they were going forward

[49:13] with these plans that also affected the commercial court did not bring a draft to the plan.

[49:17] we received the draft on March 19th. We're a public entity. We set our meeting to review the

[49:25] comments. The first one that we could do, because we're receiving the draft on March

[49:30] 19th is April 10th. We think it's appropriate for the city to make changes. I don't think

[49:35] the Miami-21 ordinance was it certainly had things that needed to be revised. We were informed

[49:41] of a number of the changes that they make that sound excellent, but also many when we

[49:47] And there were many of the VAT that could answer, or we felt, at least, on first blush, we're inconsistent with both the plus Serbia plan designs that we've done, we've already implemented some of the infrastructure regarding the streets and sidewalks and setbacks and things like that, that I don't think that this code specifically addresses, we don't know for sure because we literally have not had the opportunity to analyze it, so we'd like to meet April 10th, we're set, it's already a publicly-known meeting, and I anticipate it's going to take 30 to 60 days for us to give meaningful feedback.

[50:17] back to it. Again, a public entity meeting on April 10th, reviewing it. We're going to then analyze

[50:24] it. We'll probably set two or three meetings. We're going to try and expedite it over

[50:27] the next 60 days. But I'm sure it's going to take us at least two or three meetings to come

[50:31] up with appropriate comments. So I would ask not the deferring of April 16th just brings

[50:37] the whole new crowd out here. We asked if they split the commercial district from the residential,

[50:42] so if you're ready to move forward with the residential, go ahead. We really, we're not commenting

[50:46] on that, but we think that we need at least 60 days to analyze and give meaningful comments.

[50:53] And I think the city is open to it.

[50:54] I think that when they met with us, it seemed like they were open to the discussions, but we need

[50:59] to have those discussions.

[51:00] Can you tell us that?

[51:03] So first of all, I do, there was an oversight not going directly to bid.

[51:10] Now what we did do, we saw certain members of the bid at the public meetings.

[51:15] So we didn't do, we didn't sort of do a carve-out separate element.

[51:20] What we have done is the plus erbia plan that the bid paid for very recently approved.

[51:29] I mean, I think February.

[51:33] In that intervening time, we actually worked directly with plus erbia.

[51:37] But every item, essentially, that includes a land use regulation from their submitted plan.

[51:46] We've incorporated in some capacity.

[51:50] So we still need to meet with them.

[51:52] We still need to inform them.

[51:53] We'd love to get their stamp of approval.

[51:56] But we feel like we've done a pretty solid job of actually incorporating the recommendations.

[52:03] Thank you.

[52:04] Yes, ma'am.

[52:06] I'm Marcia Proctor.

[52:08] I'm a member of the South Grove Neighborhood Association.

[52:11] I live at 38, 21, a pliable of art.

[52:14] Coconut Grove.

[52:17] I keep thinking of the Johnny Mitchell song,

[52:19] pay paradise, put up a parking lot.

[52:22] We're not exactly coming up with a parking lot,

[52:25] but we're definitely changing the character of the neighborhood

[52:28] that all of us love.

[52:30] And we're not all, we're, what you would call,

[52:33] But we don't all live in the McMansions, we don't all have the big boxes, many of us bought there because of the canopy.

[52:42] The vegetation is like almost nowhere else in Miami.

[52:45] Every time you take down one of these houses and raise something new, these white boxes, small, big, whatever,

[52:53] you can't put back that same vegetation.

[52:55] You get palm trees and sod, it'll never be the same again.

[52:58] It will never be the same again.

[53:00] So, we are somewhat affluent.

[53:04] There's no need to disrupt the free market operation here.

[53:08] With people prefer to live in or near,

[53:10] befriend and subsidize affordable housing, of course.

[53:13] Is it good public policy?

[53:15] No.

[53:16] In the U.S., we have a capitalist system to allocate housing.

[53:19] Since the status indicates average household income is 111,414,000 in coconut growth.

[53:26] A public benefit program offering subsidized housing in this area

[53:30] is inappropriate, unjustified out of bounds.

[53:35] We're opposed to cramming in more dwelling units,

[53:37] compromising health, septic, all those issues.

[53:43] The nature of the character of the neighborhood

[53:46] and fundamentally undermining the very idea

[53:48] of a neighborhood conservation district.

[53:52] I moved here in 2001 from Tennessee.

[53:55] My daughter, Kay, and husband, came down and bought

[53:58] in the Grove from Baltimore, all of us for the same reasons, because it's just so unique

[54:03] and so wonderful, and we don't live in admissions.

[54:07] We paid more for the house to get the canopy, and I just wish it was valued and appreciated

[54:16] by Miami more than I feel like it is.

[54:19] I feel my daughter would be here tonight, her husband would be here tonight, they're doing homework

[54:25] and doing all the things that good busy people of Miami have to do, but they all are feeling despair.

[54:32] And we have been for the last year, two years, and it's increasing month by month and coconut growth.

[54:37] So, I just share with you what most of my neighbors are like us.

[54:42] Thank you.

[54:43] Thank you.

[54:44] Yes, sir.

[54:47] My name is Patrick Sessions.

[54:49] I live at 1754 South Bay Shore Lane.

[54:53] I give you all a thing on double doors, garage doors, which you can read at your leisure.

[55:00] I was going to talk about that while I was here, but after listening to everything else,

[55:04] I just wanted to kind of talk about, I'm a developer by trade, and so I know a little bit

[55:08] about this anyway, and I will tell you that the ideas that everybody has in this room are

[55:14] good ones.

[55:15] I think the question is, how do you implement them without damaging property rights and property

[55:19] values?

[55:20] And I think it's an easy task.

[55:23] I learned a long time ago as a developer.

[55:25] If you have a piece of something that you built that you're not real proud of, the trick

[55:29] is to cover it up with landscaping.

[55:31] And I would challenge you to go through the Grove right now.

[55:34] And if you stripped away the landscaping that was on houses that have been there for 50

[55:38] years, they wouldn't look very nice.

[55:41] They're not good-looking houses in a lot of cases.

[55:43] I happened to go in two houses in the Grove, one of which was built in the 40s.

[55:47] And there's nothing special about it.

[55:48] But it looks pretty nice because there's a lot of trees there.

[55:52] The solution to this problem seems to be a hand grenade to kill a fly.

[55:57] We don't have to redo the entire zoning ordinances and cooking a grove to answer the question

[56:04] which has been repeated here on everybody who spoke here talks about tree canopy, landscaping,

[56:10] nose things.

[56:11] I agree with all that.

[56:12] My point is is that you don't have to cut down the square footage of the house to

[56:17] to accomplish that. You can do things like they did, which I didn't know you know is coming.

[56:24] I've got to credit to gain some more square footage by adding additional trees and I mean trees.

[56:31] You know, we're all, well I say weed, developers are very, very guilty of planning trees this big around.

[56:39] And if it's an oak tree, it won't grow for 30 years. You know, now in the other hand we've also got a lot of junk trees

[56:44] in a group too, a lot of stuff that came down in a storm, we all are in that lesson.

[56:48] But I think you can solve 90% of everybody's problem here by requiring much heavier landscaping

[56:56] on the front of the house and down the sides as far as you can see.

[57:00] And that, I can assure you, a developer or a homeowner would gladly spend an additional

[57:07] $15,000,000 on some really good trees that would hide this home if it's a new scow home.

[57:14] And I don't think we're in the business of deciding what people should be able to build.

[57:19] Nobody in this room should be able to tell somebody else what style architecture they want to use.

[57:24] But if it's going to be a square of box which is in now, then cover it up at landscaping,

[57:30] make the permit subject to that.

[57:32] You do not have to cut the houses down to nothing, destroy values.

[57:36] I bought one of my houses as an investment.

[57:41] And if we had left the original proposal that the city came up with, it would have dropped the value of that house by about 20 or the lot, really, because it's a tear down by 25, 30 percent.

[57:53] That's simply not right, and it's not necessary. I can build a really nice house, landscape the heck out of it, and it will cure about 90 percent of what everybody's upset about here.

[58:02] And I agree with it. So, thank you. The two doors, y'all.

[58:13] My name is Cindy Snyder and I live at 3980 Hardy Road and I'm also involved with the South Grove Neighborhood Association.

[58:21] And I do think it's a good idea what the gentleman proposed about dealing with the commercial district separately.

[58:29] Because that's one of the big problems with the proposal is Lumping NCD2 and NCD3, which NCD3 alone has four different districts altogether.

[58:41] And those districts are not one size fits all.

[58:45] They're different, they have different histories,

[58:47] they have different characteristics.

[58:49] And the people in those districts want their rights respected.

[58:54] Anyway, the profission in section 3.6 G.1 of the existing code

[58:59] is essential to maintain the diversity of lot sizes and configurations.

[59:04] That's what Mr. Sessions was just talking about.

[59:07] It is on the few remaining large sites where most of the sizeable and significantly large

[59:14] canopy trees thrive.

[59:16] Those kinds of trees don't grow in 40 years, actually.

[59:20] It takes a long, long time.

[59:24] It is in their shelter and amongst them that the tropical hammock can exist, street and

[59:29] or mitigation buffer trees do not make up for the canopy loss.

[59:33] merely mimic the look of standard issues city scapes everywhere.

[59:39] The remaining uniquely shaped and size large sites need to be retained.

[59:45] The impetus for the NCD code language found in sections NCD or

[59:50] stand in sections 3.2 and 3.6.

[59:54] The intent of the NCD 3 section 3.2 reads,

[59:58] the community of Koch.

[1:00:00] On a growth predates the city of Miami, and is known for its character derived from lush landscaping and naturally occurring vegetation and trees, and its unique property sizes and shapes.

[1:00:14] In section 3.6, single-family residential district on page 17 and 18 of appendix A, which has to do with the NCD codes.

[1:00:23] States, the single-family residential district, is intended to protect the low-density, residential

[1:00:30] and dominant tree canopy characteristics of coconut grove, and prevent the intrusion

[1:00:35] of additional density uses in height.

[1:00:37] All T3, single-family residential zoning regulations shall apply within the coconut grove,

[1:00:43] single-family residential district.

[1:00:45] Here and after referred to as ncd3.au, clarifying items, they include a for architecture, b for front yards,

[1:00:56] tree canopy, c building sites, d building height, e-green space, permissible FLR, permitted accessory uses and structures.

[1:01:05] All of this is already in ncd code.

[1:01:09] That NCD code takes up all of about 20 pages in the appendix of Miami-21.

[1:01:19] The part that has to do with NCD 3 is about six pages long.

[1:01:24] That's it.

[1:01:25] What the city has proposed is to add approximately 50 pages of meaningless, indistinguishable

[1:01:33] language from the rest of Miami-21.

[1:01:36] This is not a way to eliminate confusion.

[1:01:39] This is a surefire where to add confusion and to kill NCD.

[1:01:46] That's the problem.

[1:01:47] Let's hear some comments.

[1:01:51] Can we feed back on the 50 pages?

[1:01:54] So we're actually 25.

[1:01:56] No, you're not.

[1:01:57] I counted them.

[1:01:59] So did I.

[1:01:59] Just now.

[1:02:00] Well, I've counted them too.

[1:02:02] Okay.

[1:02:02] But I would actually, that does raise a very, very good point about why we are reformating this.

[1:02:10] And so this goes way, way back to how the NCD got rolled into Miami 21, which it was sort of just plunked in there.

[1:02:20] This is caused a lot of heartache that I know you all have experienced firsthand.

[1:02:25] So a lot of what we did and a lot of, some of, there's a lot more white space in this document, literally,

[1:02:31] because we reformatted it so that the sections align with Miami-21.

[1:02:37] This is going to do two very, very, very important things.

[1:02:41] It means when our code reviewers are looking at drawings,

[1:02:45] they're used to a format,

[1:02:47] and they can see where the NCD trumps Miami-21.

[1:02:52] And to the extent where things that were NCD-3,

[1:02:56] that were meant to apply to both the single family and the duplex districts,

[1:03:01] Because of the misalignment in the language, they could no longer be applied to duplex.

[1:03:07] So that's why we've seen more recently, particularly the duplexes that are very much like sort of looming over the street,

[1:03:15] because they've been able to encroach.

[1:03:17] And those rules that were meant to be an NCD3 and apply there could no longer legally.

[1:03:23] So that's just an example, but I think this is going to improve enforcement just because we're formatting it.

[1:03:30] are lining it with Miami 21 and set of it sort of reading like a zoning code from a different

[1:03:35] city.

[1:03:35] It's certainly a different era because this was aligned with the 11,000 code.

[1:03:39] So I think that does account for some of the length.

[1:03:43] Some of the confusion about sort of things moved around a bit but it's going to lead to much,

[1:03:48] much better enforcement on the plans review side and ultimately code enforcement as well

[1:03:55] because they're going to be able to reference sections that are consistent with Miami 21.

[1:03:59] The code was enforced just fine from 2005 to 2016.

[1:04:07] During that time, it was enforced just fine.

[1:04:10] I'm a regular human.

[1:04:11] The reason I know about this code is because I was contemplating in addition.

[1:04:16] The builder I spoke was said, here's the NCD code.

[1:04:20] I was able to read that.

[1:04:22] I was able to understand it.

[1:04:25] It was easy.

[1:04:27] It needs to remain easy.

[1:04:30] This was the objection given in the first place.

[1:04:32] This was the rationale for why we need to roll this into Miami-21.

[1:04:37] Rolling it into Miami-21 takes a conservation district and turns it into just the same old, same old.

[1:04:45] And that is a disservice to the oldest and the historic and the beginning of Miami.

[1:04:54] It's coconut grove and nobody really wants to do this man.

[1:04:58] This man.

[1:05:02] Thank you.

[1:05:02] My name is Carol Lopez Bethel.

[1:05:03] I reside at 39.07.

[1:05:05] I came here to speak for myself as well as many of my neighbors who are also frustrated.

[1:05:13] As not affect many of you have seen me, including people from the city.

[1:05:16] Many times over the last two years.

[1:05:18] Our intention was to actually,

[1:05:22] this discussions with the city began through the frustration of neighbors with the lack of enforcement

[1:05:29] of the NCD3 code. The question, the big question was it's confusing. It needs to, we need

[1:05:36] to have the loopholes removed and we need to have the confusing language removed. What has occurred

[1:05:41] in lieu of that after multiple meetings, this is at least my tenth time here, as well as many

[1:05:47] meetings with Devin from the city of many officials from the city, multiple

[1:05:52] chorets and other meetings to come up with a plan entirely in contrast to what

[1:06:00] the citizens of Copenic Grove have asked for. I cannot let pass the developer who

[1:06:05] just stood up the statement that he made that all we need is to cover the newer

[1:06:10] nicer look your buildings with more trees. I cannot let that pass. I

[1:06:15] saying, we have ugly houses hidden by more trees.

[1:06:18] I believe the statement that I would like to bring up is perhaps you've heard, lipstick

[1:06:24] on a pig.

[1:06:25] Lipstick on a pig is what adding more trees in front of these buildings, which are taken over

[1:06:31] all of our neighbors in CD2 as well as in CD3.

[1:06:34] It takes, actually it takes a four and an eight-year-old child, my grandchildren who just

[1:06:40] visited me from Washington, DC, who noted the difference in our neighborhood and all the

[1:06:44] neighborhoods that they've driven in since they've lived,

[1:06:48] which have only been for the past few years.

[1:06:50] Just take a drive and see what the impact

[1:06:54] of allowing these larger homes, which do not allow

[1:06:57] tree growth for the canopy, which it's absolutely

[1:07:00] impossible.

[1:07:01] The last time I stood at this podium, excuse me,

[1:07:03] I listened to Quattitia Horses for supposedly

[1:07:06] protects our cities, for our trees, for the city.

[1:07:09] Stand here and say that she allowed several beautiful,

[1:07:14] Royal Poms, other trees to be removed because it was inconvenient for the plan that was presented

[1:07:22] by the developer. Rather than do her job, enforcement is what we have been asking for.

[1:07:30] If I don't believe most of these people would be here, if the NCV-2N3 had been enforced

[1:07:35] over the years, what we asked for was an improvement not a manipulation to be moved in a

[1:07:42] direction,

[1:07:45] to have what we have protected, it is not replaceable. I would volunteer, oh, I will

[1:07:52] pay for the bus to drive you guys around and show you what I showed my 48 year old kids.

[1:07:58] It doesn't take a genius, it doesn't take an adult to see, just take an aerial view, go on

[1:08:03] Google right now, take an aerial view from five years ago. I've been back in Miami since 2010.

[1:08:08] And the aerial view from all of Coconut Grove, all of the NCD-2 and 3, to look at the canopy

[1:08:15] change.

[1:08:16] And this is what we ask you to protect.

[1:08:18] And this is what we're here to ask you for now.

[1:08:20] We ask you for enforcement.

[1:08:22] Not manipulation.

[1:08:23] Thank you.

[1:08:24] Yeah, comments?

[1:08:27] So one thing I haven't mentioned yet, which is probably the most significant change to the code,

[1:08:33] is the increase in the green space requirement to 50% of a lot.

[1:08:38] This is a massive increase and this is done primarily to preserve the tree canopy and

[1:08:46] And allow for future tree canopy to grow. So the as much as the building volume is important

[1:08:53] Anybody any arborist will tell you the root location and the root volume is more important

[1:08:58] So increasing this ground level

[1:09:02] This coverage for green space to 50% is incredibly significant. It should

[1:09:08] Do a couple things it should keep more trees preserve when somebody's building on a new lot as well as

[1:09:17] increase canopy for

[1:09:20] Existing so

[1:09:21] Sure, I would like to ask you to tell us how the trees that the city's replacement plan for trees works

[1:09:29] We have a fun

[1:09:31] That when a developer puts up a takes down a 30-year-old

[1:09:36] whatever, massive gumbo limbo or a tree that is values for its beauty.

[1:09:42] That tree is taken off of a property that has allowed that additional dense FLR or FAR.

[1:09:48] That tree is not protected, whether or not they offer some sort of so-called guarantee for that tree to be a lot.

[1:09:59] That tree dies within three years.

[1:10:02] The city's fund does not replace the tree on that property, every place that those that the fund goes to pay for trees elsewhere will not

[1:10:11] It will not put trees on that property where that tree was removed. It does not replace and a like kind tree. It does not replace as other people have said it.

[1:10:23] know, you cannot replace 100-year-old oak with a 30 or 40, a 10-year-old oak, or a six-year-old

[1:10:30] oak, or gumbo limbo, it is not a replacement and these other buffer trees are not making

[1:10:36] the difference.

[1:10:37] Thank you.

[1:10:38] It's not keeping us around.

[1:10:39] It's not keeping us around.

[1:10:41] I'd like to mention one other item, so that we didn't incorporate from Mr. Snyder's recommendation

[1:10:47] actually, which is when a lot is being diminished, they cannot remove specimen trees as part

[1:10:55] of that lot to management.

[1:10:58] Next speaker, please.

[1:11:00] This is new in the regulation.

[1:11:03] Next speaker, please.

[1:11:05] Yes, sir.

[1:11:05] Good evening.

[1:11:06] My name is James Kishler, 3505.

[1:11:09] Could you bring the mic up?

[1:11:10] There you go.

[1:11:11] Good evening.

[1:11:12] James Kishler, 3505, Wildwood Circle, Campus Skain, Coconut Grove,

[1:11:16] My wife and I have been living in Coconut Grove for over 35 years.

[1:11:21] I attended the last city planning meeting with Mr. Geiger and Mr. Martin and various community district members.

[1:11:29] I'm in agreement with Dr. Cindy Snyder's comments and proposal for strengthening the C-NCD code.

[1:11:35] I think they distributed it out to you.

[1:11:39] In particular, the need to better enforce the existing NCD codes by strengthening the Coconut Grove design review criteria.

[1:11:46] that is based on three components. Very simple. No increase in density on single

[1:11:52] family sites, period. No material decrease in free-cannon period. The compliance

[1:11:59] was current. Sorry, could you repeat number two? Sorry? Yeah, I couldn't hear the

[1:12:03] second. The second is no material decrease in canopy, free canopy. And the third is

[1:12:11] plans with current city, county and state requirements.

[1:12:16] One additional comment that I brought up at the planning department meeting was in regard

[1:12:20] to the city of Miami's tree mitigation policy.

[1:12:24] Currently, trees at a building site are assessed, and then mitigated on for replacement

[1:12:29] trees is required.

[1:12:31] However, these trees can be placed anywhere in the boundary of the city of Miami Commissioner's

[1:12:36] District.

[1:12:36] A large canopy trees, large canopy trees to provide a distinguishing character to a lot and

[1:12:43] our neighborhood can be relocated, changing the quality of tree canopy.

[1:12:49] This needs to be stopped and reassessed to provide neighborhood's better protection of their

[1:12:54] existing tree canopy.

[1:12:56] I live in campus gain, a residential neighborhood of 25 single family lots, off of main highway

[1:13:04] And what I believe to be the commercial quarter of Coconut Grove.

[1:13:09] The campus gained homeowner's association,

[1:13:12] presently requires all three mitigation to be done on site.

[1:13:17] This should be a starting point for a new Coconut Grove,

[1:13:19] three mitigation code.

[1:13:22] I strongly urge you the board to deny this

[1:13:25] amendment of accordance 13114.

[1:13:28] Thank you.

[1:13:31] I want to hear from the city on, yeah, three comments.

[1:13:36] So the regarding the blanket, no increase in density, what I will say is we have greatly

[1:13:44] limited the locked eminishment primarily by map as well as by additional criteria.

[1:13:53] I think there's real danger in that because that could result in some lot splits being

[1:13:58] allowed more lots, because they did historically, there's, you know, there were sort of,

[1:14:06] what's the word, aggregations in South Grove where you had multi-family dwellings.

[1:14:12] So I believe we did not include that particular criteria, but I think the effect of not

[1:14:21] allowing lots less than 7500 square feet for portions of Grove not allowing lots for less than

[1:14:26] 20,000 square feet for quite a bit of South Grove and even less than 40,000 square feet

[1:14:32] on a lot of the properties on the bay will have that same effect.

[1:14:39] The no decrease in canopy while we are going to, in the latest version, a lot of the

[1:14:48] management cannot interfere with any specimen trees, as I said, so that's something that

[1:14:53] think is addressing that. We don't intend to mean that, have that mean that like you can't

[1:14:58] remove junk trees, you can't.

[1:15:00] And remember, like, you know, invasives, you can't remove palms, that sort of thing. But we do want to make sure that

[1:15:07] no specimen trees are affected by that. As far as enforcing something where we have to relocate or provide mitigation within the NCD,

[1:15:22] I believe we would need to check on this. I believe we would need to make a change to chapter 17 of the code.

[1:15:29] which is the tree ordinance.

[1:15:35] Yes, sir.

[1:15:40] My name is still William Zelfin, on Berser.

[1:15:44] I still live at 32, 60 Thomas Avenue,

[1:15:47] and I still praise the Lord Jesus.

[1:15:51] The gentleman here is, he's got a good ideas,

[1:15:54] but we don't have any junk trees that coconut grow.

[1:15:57] You can ask any of my people here.

[1:16:00] We don't have junk trees.

[1:16:02] And we're not concerned about

[1:16:04] you're replacing the trees, our concern is the retention of the trees, understand the difference.

[1:16:11] And if you, if you will, if you will all take the time to carefully read through Miami 21,

[1:16:20] if the spirit of the Miami 21 is enforced, we would need an NCD 2 or 3.

[1:16:28] NCD 1 is in good shape, you know, the mayor lives there, so he'll never have any problem.

[1:16:33] And what I'd like to know is I read through the four and five through the one set

[1:16:41] where it'd be submitted that I've been put off for today and what I was looking for

[1:16:47] is why I didn't see it at first.

[1:16:49] I wanted to read in there where something indicated enforcement.

[1:16:56] See you want to change things for what's not being enforced to something that's going to come

[1:17:02] But just still not, of course, we don't have a free apartment of agriculture, a free

[1:17:10] apartment to go around every couple of years and see if those trees that have been planted

[1:17:15] are even still alive.

[1:17:18] See, so we're asking for retention of our community and when you look at over the past two

[1:17:25] or three decades, the city has been systematically changing the zoning on properties and coconut

[1:17:32] I grow from T3R to T3L, and when you do that, you drive up the cost of real estate and

[1:17:40] my community, because instead of replacing a single family house with a single family house,

[1:17:46] they're now replacing them with $2, 650,000 dollar starter homes.

[1:17:52] So it's not that real estate is more expensive, is that your decisions are making it impossible

[1:17:58] for the people to remain in this community.

[1:18:02] So take the Miami-21 and if you read through the Miami-21 and know for yourselves, like I

[1:18:09] do, that if we enforce the spirit of Miami-21, we can throw the MCDs out.

[1:18:15] Thank you for your time.

[1:18:16] Thank you.

[1:18:17] Yes, sir.

[1:18:19] Hello.

[1:18:20] Hello.

[1:18:20] My name is Charles Trister.

[1:18:22] I'm a resident of the Grove.

[1:18:23] I grew up in the Grove and the South Grove and now I live, can you hear me?

[1:18:29] Yes, I can.

[1:18:29] I now I live in the North Grove and I'm also a practicing architect

[1:18:33] and a home builder.

[1:18:35] I've been building homes currently and for the last

[1:18:39] on and off 30 years in the Grove.

[1:18:41] So I really, I think I love the Grove and I agree with

[1:18:45] everyone is saying in general about the tree canopy.

[1:18:48] That is something that I think any Grove I can agree on

[1:18:52] and I think the enforcement of some of our tree ordinances

[1:18:55] hasn't been done to the right extent.

[1:18:58] But I started looking at the single family home proposals.

[1:19:03] And I think after studying them,

[1:19:06] and I'm a builder of houses and a designer of houses,

[1:19:09] I think they've gone a little too far.

[1:19:11] And why do I say that?

[1:19:13] I went and I did an analysis of the current proposed

[1:19:18] changes on the different size lots.

[1:19:20] and I passed out, submitted a letter, hopefully you got to see it, and you can look at it later.

[1:19:26] Where I did a really detailed analysis, and I think the key thing that Jeremy just mentioned

[1:19:31] is the issue of green space. Now the goal, of course, and I share in this goal, we want more

[1:19:38] green space. We want to increase the tree canopy. But we have to balance that, and I think

[1:19:44] balance is the key word here.

[1:19:47] We have to balance it with our individual rights to build whatever type of house we want

[1:19:53] to build, whatever style, and with whatever needs.

[1:19:56] Many of the houses, every house I can safely say, in the Grove, was a new house at one point.

[1:20:02] Whether it was built in 1910, 1920, 1930.

[1:20:05] And back then, a regular home was a 1600-1800 square foot home.

[1:20:11] It was a two-bedroom one bath in the forties.

[1:20:15] That was the soldiers were coming home for more.

[1:20:17] That's what they wanted.

[1:20:19] Maybe it was a three-bedroom.

[1:20:20] Many of the homes were very charming in the Grove today,

[1:20:24] but they're small homes.

[1:20:25] And I think we need to be able to modernize our homes,

[1:20:29] do additions, build new homes,

[1:20:31] And the problem with this current proposal, and I'll just give real quick, I know I'm over my time, but I looked at it, and I studied it from three specific things.

[1:20:41] Number one, I think the green space, bringing it from 30 to 50% is two intrusive. Why? Because if you take everything outside of the green space, it not only includes the house, but it includes things like your pool, your patio, your cover chair,

[1:21:01] your driveway, your garage, your walkways, that takes up space. People want an outdoor patio and a pool.

[1:21:10] So by the time you take all that away, you're left with a very small house.

[1:21:14] So I think my proposal would be the green space should be 40% not 30.

[1:21:21] It's a 33% increase. It accomplishes the purpose, and it still allows us the ability to build the type of homes we want.

[1:21:31] and that the market wants people want new homes.

[1:21:34] Now, if you want an old home and you want to leave,

[1:21:37] live in a 2200 foot home, build God bless you.

[1:21:40] That's what's great about America.

[1:21:42] That's what our constitution says.

[1:21:44] We all have property rights.

[1:21:45] We have the right to do it.

[1:21:46] And there's one other, two other negatives.

[1:21:48] I'll just mention quickly.

[1:21:50] One is, I'm very concerned, as someone who's

[1:21:52] in the real estate business, that if we were to pass these

[1:21:55] restrictions and gone a little too far,

[1:21:57] and we won't be able to add on to our houses

[1:22:00] or build new houses to the size that people want.

[1:22:04] It's going to lower everyone's property values.

[1:22:07] And that will hurt a lot of people in this town.

[1:22:11] And for many people, their home is their nest egg.

[1:22:15] It's their biggest asset.

[1:22:17] So it's great.

[1:22:18] We have to, again, balance.

[1:22:20] And you have its difficult decision.

[1:22:22] On one hand, we want to create a great community

[1:22:24] with trees, with this historic nature.

[1:22:27] But on the other hand, we can't give away

[1:22:29] are fundamental rights to enjoy our property, to build our property, and not our value.

[1:22:35] And one last thing I know I've gone over my time.

[1:22:38] One of the new restrictions in the boardenances to bring the first floor from 50% to 35%

[1:22:45] for a lot coverage.

[1:22:48] That can discriminate against three groups of people that I don't think any of us want to discriminate against.

[1:22:53] One is the elderly, the second is handicapped, and the third is young families.

[1:22:59] Why do I say that?

[1:23:00] All three of those groups may generally like a one story house.

[1:23:05] They can't go upstairs, they don't want to go upstairs, they don't want their baby

[1:23:09] falling down the stairs.

[1:23:11] So if we diminish the lot coverage on the first floor to 35%, which the answer is, well, that

[1:23:19] allows more open space.

[1:23:20] It does, but it forces you to build a two story house.

[1:23:24] That is a discrimination against the elderly,

[1:23:27] the handicap, and young families.

[1:23:29] We cannot allow that in our community.

[1:23:31] So I thank you and I appreciate your.

[1:23:34] Thank you.

[1:23:35] Yes, sir.

[1:23:41] I funny made a lot of good points.

[1:23:42] I would like to hear in the cities.

[1:23:44] I'm sorry.

[1:23:45] Did you see if you have a feedback on the last speaker's comments?

[1:23:50] We did.

[1:23:51] I did meet with Mr. Treaster, actually,

[1:23:52] And for the smaller lots, we did lower the required green space for anything under 10,000 square feet from 50% to 40%.

[1:24:02] We feel in the larger lots that's still going to work fine.

[1:24:08] Regarding the first floor, the main thing, there's two things.

[1:24:13] One is that we feel like, in order for the amount of green space to work, we do need to shrink the building footprint.

[1:24:20] Number two is that there have been nearly zero single-family homes built recently in the Grove.

[1:24:27] We literally could not find them.

[1:24:30] So we feel like that is a problem that we don't really have single story.

[1:24:38] What did I say?

[1:24:39] I don't know what I said.

[1:24:41] Sorry.

[1:24:42] Sorry.

[1:24:42] Single story.

[1:24:45] And that, you know, regarding the green space, it is a significant increase, but that's

[1:24:51] what we feel like we need to do to address the tree canopy, you know, roots matter.

[1:24:58] Yes, sir.

[1:24:59] Subword questions to that.

[1:25:00] Is that, is that 50% requirement include, like he said, the driveway, sidewalks.

[1:25:07] So you still have the 50 percent green space, green space does include mulch, and it doesn't

[1:25:15] mean literally lands, but yeah, driveway, hard-skate, everything else counts, the pool counts

[1:25:24] against the, is the hard-skate portion, and then you have the building footprint that counts

[1:25:30] as lock coverage.

[1:25:31] Thank you.

[1:25:33] Good evening.

[1:25:35] My name is JS Rashid.

[1:25:36] I'm President of the Coconut Grove Village West.

[1:25:38] Homeones and Tennis Association.

[1:25:41] And when I presided as President of the Coconut Grove Collaborative,

[1:25:45] we were the organization that ushered in the first NCD policy,

[1:25:52] which is the NCD II.

[1:25:54] This was a particular concern for the tenure of the historic rest

[1:26:02] residents. And so now that you have a Solomon-like task here to cut the baby in half,

[1:26:12] we have almost conflicting needs and aspirations. And even though we have been given assurances

[1:26:20] that it could be accommodated in one broad legislation, inclusive of the NCD2 and 3,

[1:26:29] I am still, I still remain concerned that, in the discourse, we are pitting ourselves against each other.

[1:26:37] So when I need a cardiologist, I don't go to a podiatrist, and when I need a podiatrist, I don't go to a cardiologist.

[1:26:46] The needs of the historic growth is specific, it's not luxurious.

[1:26:52] And I'm aspirational, and I hope I have the concerns about splitting my lots, and I'm not against that.

[1:26:58] I don't want us as a community to be pitted against each other, but we have particular and unique needs that need to be captured in this policy that we're trying to put forward.

[1:27:11] And I'm speaking, since I'm a representative of the Coconut Grove Village West, I really want my neighbors to have what they want.

[1:27:20] I empathize with them, but I'm speaking with respect to the village west, the historic

[1:27:29] vehement on clay that we need a little bit more density.

[1:27:33] And we need the things that are observant about in the other areas.

[1:27:38] We also need considerations that I heard if I heard correctly about the 7500 square large

[1:27:45] would not qualify for the granny flats or the additions.

[1:27:47] We don't, we want to make sure that as we approach this, that you don't pass us on

[1:27:53] their bus type policy, that we pre-imps our aspirations for having the

[1:28:01] density that we need to drive the cost down so that we can maintain

[1:28:04] our tenure in this neighborhood.

[1:28:08] So, I would like to see if we can have these discussions separated, and that there

[1:28:14] possibility. One of the other concerns that we have is that in one part of this

[1:28:20] NCD omnibus is not acceptable or change it might flow the baby out with the

[1:28:26] bath water. So as we proceed and I'm glad we have the opportunity to have this

[1:28:31] discussion is to reemphasize the particular and unique needs. Look at this

[1:28:37] growth. Look at our parts. Look at our housing. Excuse me. It's like a

[1:28:42] of will is changing. We've been decimated and pushed out as you can see it and it's amazing.

[1:28:49] This is not the same rule that I moved to. And again, the NCTD got started for this

[1:28:55] one purpose and we start off one way and then we get up the road a little bit and it's

[1:29:02] not what we started out about. So I really want this NCTD to finally do something once

[1:29:09] for all.

[1:29:11] Can I have an asking question on Mr. O'Shea?

[1:29:13] Yes, sir.

[1:29:15] Do I hear you correctly, but you think that a village west homeowner association

[1:29:19] would have support ADUs?

[1:29:22] I know most of the bulk of the lots in the west grove or 5,000 square feet, 50 by 100.

[1:29:27] There's some 25 by 100.

[1:29:29] But do you seek the village west homeowner's would have support ADUs on 5,000 square

[1:29:34] for lots?

[1:29:35] I'm confident because this is 10 amount to our survival and continue to continue.

[1:29:41] We have to have it and we affordability is key.

[1:29:46] So yes, I think we need to create a ways we need to application and sometimes my grandson,

[1:29:53] you know, I tell the grandfather and analogies they fall flat, but I'm again, we applied one set.

[1:29:59] is...

[1:30:00] One body, one community, but we have different needs. So we need that. I don't want in the den of the discussion that this gets left out.

[1:30:12] One of the same lines. Do you think that those west should re-institute plan unit developments, which used to occur in the city, so that you could do cluster homes?

[1:30:22] If we don't, we're not going to be here. Okay. Thank you.

[1:30:25] Okay, thank you.

[1:30:27] Let's go.

[1:30:30] May I respond?

[1:30:31] A couple of a couple of points.

[1:30:34] So I just to be clear, every bit of NCD2 has been incorporated and captured in this legislation.

[1:30:43] In fact, we're making a number of things that were problematic about enforcement or just sort

[1:30:49] of missteps in the NCD2.

[1:30:52] We've repaired those.

[1:30:54] I'd also say we are still keeping the regional differences of the growth, north-south central,

[1:31:02] distinct.

[1:31:03] We have a map that discusses the lots splitting by district.

[1:31:07] And also regarding the issue of the coconut growth,

[1:31:11] bid sort of being broken out as a separate element.

[1:31:13] I actually believe the bid is primarily in NCD-3,

[1:31:18] although it might be split down a portion of it.

[1:31:21] But in general, though, I think a lot of the protections that people brought in about trees,

[1:31:28] about green space requirements, about shrinking building volumes,

[1:31:33] that those are all elements that maybe weren't first and foremost in the West Grove

[1:31:38] and the sort of list of requirements, you know, starting with affordability,

[1:31:44] but obviously will be beneficial to West Grove as well.

[1:31:51] One of the things that we're concerned about the design standards, it took a while, they

[1:31:56] got lost.

[1:31:58] And we spent many years in cooperation with the University of Miami School of Architecture,

[1:32:03] Center for Urban and Community Design, and Dr. Samino Koreshi and Richard Shepherd helped

[1:32:11] us in a series of focus groups that come up with a comprehensive design standards that was

[1:32:19] And this has to be part of it in sympathical with the Coconut Grove Park, a homeowner's

[1:32:27] association.

[1:32:28] They are supportive of this, and Mr. Coleman wrote something that he's going to pass out

[1:32:33] that we can sign on to, but it has to be attended with the, oh yes.

[1:32:38] This is the Coconut Grove Grand Avenue Vision and Plan.

[1:32:41] This has to be incorporated into the NCT 2.

[1:32:45] The design standards, which are enforceable and specific and codified, if we don't have it,

[1:32:54] then we're just wasting a class of amount of time.

[1:32:57] So we have incorporated those by name by the actual name of the document.

[1:33:02] So it's another way we're improving this beyond NCD2, which Mr. Mr. Mistana.

[1:33:07] Thank you.

[1:33:11] I'm sorry, but excuse me, there was a question earlier that I don't think you answered

[1:33:16] about splitting the commercial from the residential presentation and I don't recall you mentioning

[1:33:22] that.

[1:33:23] So, yeah, the bid is actually captured in NCD3.

[1:33:27] We would prefer to run it together because we feel like we've captured the issues of the

[1:33:33] bid.

[1:33:34] We need to present that to them still, but their master plan was also just recently adopted.

[1:33:42] And it would be certainly, I mean, I think it could delay things considerably overall trying

[1:33:50] to carve that out and I'm not sure to what effect, you know, the sort of, it would be quite

[1:34:00] a bit of headache.

[1:34:01] It would actually be carved out of both NCT 2 and 3 and I don't know what we'd be gaining

[1:34:09] from that.

[1:34:11] Several speakers, including the bid, have mentioned that.

[1:34:15] So it seems to be a concern as to...

[1:34:19] I thought you were...

[1:34:19] I thought you were.

[1:34:21] The neighborhoods and the business district.

[1:34:24] But specifically the bid.

[1:34:26] I think it's because the bid intersects with the other two NCDs.

[1:34:32] Don't quote me on that.

[1:34:33] I know it intersects with three.

[1:34:36] So, also because I think we've incorporated the concerns now, I do have meeting scheduled with members of the bid.

[1:34:46] I believe this week or next week, and I've met with certain members of them already.

[1:34:55] And then regarding the...

[1:34:58] I think they're meeting April 10th, have I recall?

[1:35:00] Yeah.

[1:35:01] Are you meeting with them at that meeting?

[1:35:02] I believe I'm meeting with that if that meeting, but I might have one previous to it as well

[1:35:06] or maybe it's with certain members I'd have to have to have a chat with the board as a whole and

[1:35:11] into members significantly different and then regarding regarding the commercial areas you know

[1:35:18] there's regulations that apply to the bid but these are also regulations that apply to 27 like

[1:35:23] That's not the only area that's sort of T5, T6 zone.

[1:35:31] It would be an odd carve out.

[1:35:34] Thanks, sir.

[1:35:36] I do think in less it's changed that the bid is only in the NCD3.

[1:35:42] The NCD2 historically is always excluded for varying reasons.

[1:35:48] Yeah, I don't have a map, sir.

[1:35:49] But it might talk to Mr. Rashid about his ideas for the bid as well and be included to the DD2.

[1:36:01] Thank you.

[1:36:02] My name is Anthony Pop.

[1:36:03] I live on two, three, four, five, six months of laying.

[1:36:07] I've been a resident of Coconut Grove for over eight years.

[1:36:10] My concern with this legislation is that it's just on with two broad strokes.

[1:36:15] Just like the two speakers before me commented,

[1:36:18] Each individual community is unique and needs to be looked at specifically, there are going to be certain neighborhoods where it might be beneficial to split lots, there are certain neighborhoods where it might not be.

[1:36:29] But without question, there are going to be two poor effects from this legislation.

[1:36:35] One is that my property rights will be in front of upon, if I have the ability to not build the same structure that I would have been able to build before.

[1:36:43] And in addition, I share concerns about the design of the neighborhood.

[1:36:48] So I would vote for Strictor enforcement of the current laws,

[1:36:51] Strictor enforcement of the current code for design,

[1:36:54] Strictor enforcement for landscaping and for our tree canopy,

[1:36:59] which is wildly important to the coconut grow if I agree.

[1:37:03] But where I disagree is that by putting in specific limits,

[1:37:07] by reducing specific limits for renovations,

[1:37:10] we're actually going to make an improvement.

[1:37:12] And so I worry that the new code and it's very different forms that actually reduce

[1:37:17] a lot of coverage, still are not going to please a lot of the residents that are unhappy

[1:37:21] with the white boxes in that current form.

[1:37:25] My specific case is I live on a 5,000 square foot lot, whether I have an old home, it was built

[1:37:31] in the 1940s.

[1:37:33] I've had roof leaks, I've had thermites, homes need to be repaired and at some point

[1:37:37] homes might need major work.

[1:37:39] If major work at some point takes the place of a new construction, which is 2400 square feet, it is going to be two stories.

[1:37:46] If the new construction takes place of 3,000 square feet, and it's still going to be three stories.

[1:37:52] In both cases, people that think it's ugly are going to think it's ugly.

[1:37:55] It's not really going to affect the pleasure of walking down the street, just by adjusting the lock coverage.

[1:38:03] So instead, I would vote for improved and more time spent on design.

[1:38:07] Thank you.

[1:38:09] Thank you.

[1:38:11] Ladies and gentlemen.

[1:38:12] Marcellular Fernandez, 35, 23, North Bay Homestrive, and I'm a grove-vite in the

[1:38:17] sense I've been here all my life.

[1:38:19] I'm also a real-state broker.

[1:38:21] I'm also a real-state developer.

[1:38:22] And recently I became the chair of the Coconut Grove Reel's Council.

[1:38:25] And I have been dealing with code and applying the code to properties for my whole life.

[1:38:34] And it's very difficult and different to talk and broad strokes about what's good and bad and what I don't like.

[1:38:39] What I've been hearing in the last two years is when people start talking about this is not good.

[1:38:45] It's, you know, it's too restrictive or not too restrictive enough because you cannot do one broad stroke, like the gentleman said.

[1:38:51] On the flip side, I'm looking into right now doing some research on the amount of the, the NZD does need to be changed.

[1:38:57] This was all started by the public. It was not started by the city.

[1:39:01] The public wanted to change it happen and the cities take in the step to do that so I have to come in them on that

[1:39:07] The problems happening here is that

[1:39:10] If you don't have clear cut rules that is much harder to enforce so step one is that

[1:39:16] Clean up the CND and clean up the codes was more easier to understand and clean cut and they're doing a map

[1:39:22] And they're doing things that are good second step will be enforcement obviously in force, and it's not with a plan to farm as a whole of the department

[1:39:28] I'm looking into right now, even creating a special person in the department that would be taking a control of every application that comes to the grove.

[1:39:38] Because the grove is unique, lots are unique.

[1:39:41] For one perfect example, I did develop a single story home last year on a seminar on a square foot lot.

[1:39:47] It was only 3,200 square feet. It did include a basement, and I got over $700 a foot for that.

[1:39:52] want to for $2 million. So it can be done. Why did it go for that price? Because the architecture

[1:39:57] was correct and the space plan was well done. And if you don't restrict people to start

[1:40:03] being more creative and use more architectural features for it, then they're going to get lazy

[1:40:07] and just build gross square footage. So I understand why they're trying to limit these things

[1:40:11] because it makes sense for that. What we do have to do is do specifics. One last point is what's

[1:40:17] good in auxiliary units for these flats.

[1:40:21] If you're going to go to St. God and a $7,000,000

[1:40:23] square foot lot, and you can only build $35,000 square feet.

[1:40:27] You're going to be pulling $3,500,000, $3,500.

[1:40:29] You're not going to spend $400 square feet for a flat

[1:40:32] for a U.M. kid to rent.

[1:40:33] You're going to put a family room in that house.

[1:40:35] So the market's going to control all of these things.

[1:40:37] So we have to be very specific on density.

[1:40:41] It's going to happen in the right place, and they're promoting it

[1:40:43] in the right places.

[1:40:44] of auxiliary units need to happen, and needs to be in incentive for old homes.

[1:40:48] If you're going to keep your old home on the site, then have the incentive of putting

[1:40:51] auxiliary units on there.

[1:40:52] Then you can have a 2500 square foot home that's existing, and put a 400 square foot.

[1:40:55] But if you're in the wrong zone and you can't do that.

[1:40:57] So if you have a person dedicated to the code of NCD, which right now you go to the

[1:41:04] zoning department, CDMAME, I know more about the NCD than the zoning processes they're doing.

[1:41:08] That's a problem.

[1:41:09] So if they have somebody dedicated to that that come out and actually looks at every property

[1:41:13] And look at every situation, then you can allow a waiver process to come in and say, okay, we only allow 35%

[1:41:19] lot coverage, but in your situation, when you're asking for 40 on this lot, with this tree in this

[1:41:23] condition, it's be good for if you can do a single story home. So that cannot be left out. Right now,

[1:41:27] if you want to do a waiver process, it's way too long, way too cumbersome. If we streamline it,

[1:41:32] it has somebody that's going out there and understanding the codes that it does, I'm all for

[1:41:36] because we'll get to where we want to do and create more creative architecture. Thank you.

[1:41:46] My name is Lisa Zetter, I live in Coconut Grove, I live on Kuhukuchi Street and several of my

[1:41:52] neighbors, raise your hand. These are my neighbors who came because they want to be here,

[1:41:58] they're very concerned. Also about what's happening in the North Grove and Coconut Grove,

[1:42:03] we are personally being afflicted by a house that's across the street from where we live.

[1:42:09] It was zoned for a single lot, and the house is a historic home, and there's a huge oak tree on it.

[1:42:18] Over the last three years since someone bought the house, it's been slowly being chiseled away this under-year-old oak tree,

[1:42:26] because he can't build two houses on the lot. It's only one in the oak trees in the way.

[1:42:32] So we recently came to a meeting where they said that the house will be demolished because it's an unsafe structure.

[1:42:39] It's been totally ignored for the last two years.

[1:42:43] It feels like it's a total set up.

[1:42:45] The house was beautiful.

[1:42:47] It's historic.

[1:42:48] There's no trees on the lot right now.

[1:42:51] It will be zoned for two houses.

[1:42:54] We know that.

[1:42:54] We see it.

[1:42:55] It's like the writings on the wall.

[1:42:58] I recently ran into the owner and asked them what's happening

[1:43:01] because it's a total isor.

[1:43:03] We open our front door and we see this property.

[1:43:06] and he said to me, quote, unquote,

[1:43:10] the house will be torn down and demolished.

[1:43:13] The oak tree is coming down and I'm building two big townhouses on it

[1:43:17] and you won't be able to see this guy.

[1:43:19] Now, if you just trying to irritate me, you know,

[1:43:22] and push my buttons, okay, that's one thing, but maybe it's true.

[1:43:26] We don't know, but we are really concerned, again,

[1:43:30] we live all around this property off of Tigrato.

[1:43:34] And it's in our backyards and in our front yard.

[1:43:39] And so I just wanted to share that I am personally and my neighbors are being afflicted

[1:43:44] by what's happening and are really concerned.

[1:43:48] Thanks.

[1:43:48] Thank you.

[1:43:49] That's all.

[1:43:51] Good evening.

[1:43:52] Linda Alder, 2784, Southwest 29,000, 33133.

[1:43:56] I want to address specifically the West Grove.

[1:44:01] Now, as hopefully all of you know, the Head Board had their first preliminary approval

[1:44:09] of the multiple property-thematic designation for homes that are whipped for in vernacular,

[1:44:17] including the shotguns, Shacks, and the West Grove.

[1:44:21] At the public meeting, which was held on March 20th at Armbrister Park, and I know some

[1:44:28] the people in the room were president that meeting. One of the suggestions to the people because

[1:44:34] there is no opt-out right now. One of the suggestions to the people in the room that are property

[1:44:38] owners was, yes, you have a 750 square foot house, maybe up to 1,000. But you know what? We're

[1:44:48] going to let y'all put and sell our units, Granny Flas. And my question to Jeremy that night was

[1:44:58] I read in the...

[1:45:00] Overlay that granny flats were for lots, larger than 7,500 square feet. And the majority of the

[1:45:07] lots that we're talking about for at least 51 to now I understand the number has grown 61 possibly

[1:45:14] properties that are going to probably be forced to become historically designated for perpetuity.

[1:45:21] If there isn't an exception carved out for them, then that 7,500 square feet minimum,

[1:45:28] not size means those people don't get to put ancillary unit that's needs to be addressed.

[1:45:34] So I'd be happy to be.

[1:45:36] Thank you.

[1:45:37] The intent is for the language to read, and I'm sorry this wasn't clear, as it if a home

[1:45:42] is designated, they are by right allowed to have an auxiliary unit.

[1:45:47] So this is something we want to do to incentivize people to designate homes.

[1:45:52] I think as the statement was earlier that the NCD, it's an overlay to it's like a compromise towards historic districts.

[1:46:06] I think we've seen that sort of awkwardly applied and it works much better when people just designate if it's worth designating.

[1:46:15] So we want to give a carrot for that in the form of the ADUs as well.

[1:46:19] But in the case, it's part of the strictness.

[1:46:22] It's by, by home.

[1:46:24] I mean, there are, there's a historic district in the Grove.

[1:46:28] Now, OK.

[1:46:28] But in particular, it's not a district.

[1:46:31] Right.

[1:46:31] But that's not a district that's multi-building.

[1:46:33] So I don't want there to be misunderstood.

[1:46:36] Those terms that are less than 7,500.

[1:46:38] No, no, no.

[1:46:40] The, the, the, the lot size limitation does not apply to the store.

[1:46:43] Those, OK.

[1:46:44] Correct.

[1:46:45] And we might need to clarify that language to make it.

[1:46:47] Thank you.

[1:46:48] Thank you.

[1:46:48] Yes ma'am. Yes sir. Yes, how you doing? My name is Matt Radalante. My fourth generation Miami native and I live on to

[1:46:57] Questalane, 2394 Coliseum to Questa and you know me and my wife been living there since 2005 and saving our savings to be able to build our our dream home for our family.

[1:47:12] You know right now the change is from Miami 21 they were already existing.

[1:47:16] I mean, you're looking at a lot coverage of a 60% decrease in what we're going to be able to do.

[1:47:23] Green ratio is a 67% increase in the green rate ratio.

[1:47:28] And the first floor is a 43% decrease in what we can do in the first floor.

[1:47:35] Yeah, a lot of people here already have their houses and they're already happy in their

[1:47:38] houses.

[1:47:39] They're living the way they want to live.

[1:47:40] I bought my house thinking that I would be able to build a beautiful house for my wife

[1:47:44] my family going forward, you know, right now my children are not going to have to, they're not

[1:47:49] going to be able to get a pool, you know, if we have that green ratio.

[1:47:55] You know, we have small lots in the group.

[1:47:57] I know there's lots of trees, I don't have any of those trees on my property, but I'm still

[1:48:02] going to have to, you know, leave room for a 40-year-old oak that's going to be there in 40

[1:48:06] years and I'm not going to be able to build a home that's, you know, commensurate with my

[1:48:11] family and what were, you know, our goals were, you know, in essence, it's a taking, it's a

[1:48:19] large taking, it's over 50% taking and what we could do with our property. It's a taking

[1:48:24] a property value. You know, my family has been involved in a lot of real estate transactions

[1:48:28] over the years and the government has taken properties from us at times and it's an

[1:48:31] eminent domain situation. And, you know, just because the city hasn't been so forced, you

[1:48:36] know, forthright and providing parks for people, you know, people are trying to make

[1:48:40] are properties, parks for everybody else, right?

[1:48:43] And I get it, you know, trees are great.

[1:48:45] I love trees.

[1:48:46] I live in the Grove because I love it there.

[1:48:48] And part of it is the character of the trees.

[1:48:52] It doesn't make sense to have private property owners have to provide

[1:48:56] park space for everybody else around them and suffer the loss of

[1:49:00] property values in the face of that.

[1:49:05] So it seems like it's more of a enforcement issue down the street

[1:49:09] from us, you know, somebody after the storm just started, you know, chopping down the trees and

[1:49:14] acting like the storm knocked them over.

[1:49:17] You know, there's been multiple, you know, sites that have been developed around our neighborhood.

[1:49:22] And these beautiful old trees have just been chopped down and nothing has been done about it.

[1:49:27] And I agree with all the mitigation of the trees.

[1:49:30] And I think there's ways we can do that.

[1:49:32] But I don't think just decreasing the amount of house that you have to build or that you get

[1:49:36] build. It's unfair, you know, some people worry built their houses, you know, and you know,

[1:49:42] I might not be able to build a home that's like maybe over 60% of the other homes I've been

[1:49:47] built in the last, you know, 10 years in our neighborhood. And it's a very sudden thing too, you

[1:49:53] know, and I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you.

[1:49:59] Good

[1:50:03] afternoon. I'm Linda Williams. I live at 35, 23 Charles Avenue.

[1:50:10] The consensus of village

[1:50:11] West community is to not combine the NCT 2 with NCT 3 making it one. Primarily

[1:50:22] because our communities are unique.

[1:50:28] Village West needs protection of a history,

[1:50:32] character, culture, and sincere concern

[1:50:36] for its longstanding residents.

[1:50:40] I want to emphasize culture.

[1:50:44] We have a culture.

[1:50:47] Unlike others, we live in our homes

[1:50:51] a long time, we're not interested so much in living there short while and replacing it, flipping it.

[1:51:02] This was an area designed not long ago as a T-U-A targeted urban area.

[1:51:11] This was an area where African Americans were to live, and we did.

[1:51:18] Now, there's over development.

[1:51:23] We can't afford what's in our community,

[1:51:27] largely because of the big boxes and lack of enforcement.

[1:51:35] What I'm hearing over and over is lack of enforcement.

[1:51:39] The NCD2 was created for purpose and should stand alone to continue to protect the residents of village west.

[1:51:53] It's history and it's culture.

[1:51:57] There's too much development if it needs to be strengthened, which I'm told it has them,

[1:52:04] than which strengthened it, but I don't think we should separate it or combine it.

[1:52:10] Thank you.

[1:52:11] Thank you.

[1:52:17] Hi, I'm John Norton, 35-80 Royal Palm Avenue.

[1:52:21] And I ask the question, why are we here?

[1:52:24] It's over development and an alarming rate.

[1:52:27] I'm 4 generations in Miami, also 1100 year house, 100 year old house.

[1:52:32] I grew up on St. God's Road and I've lived in my house for 30 years.

[1:52:36] I'd like to talk about affordable housing project that was big about 30, 40 years ago.

[1:52:41] It's called the St. Hughes Promptory.

[1:52:44] And that is turned into not affordable housing anymore.

[1:52:48] It was built on a corner of Franklin and Douglas Road.

[1:52:52] I'd also like to mention talk about development.

[1:52:54] I have a friend I had dinner with last night.

[1:52:57] He's a very street.

[1:52:58] And the light pollution from Park Grove is astounding.

[1:53:01] They turn the lights on yesterday.

[1:53:03] And the whole neighborhood lights up.

[1:53:05] Up zoning, therefore, puts more units in the same space.

[1:53:10] We need to support the court-tested curl-gables code and make it very simple.

[1:53:15] I think the complicated aspect gives a confusion.

[1:53:18] And that's true.

[1:53:23] Ancillary buildings crowd lots and neighbors,

[1:53:26] traffic and cars on the soil basically creates a real traffic problem.

[1:53:30] I live on Royal Palm.

[1:53:32] The pedestrian light at Hi-Buscus and Main Highway is turned into a traffic light.

[1:53:36] It was there in the 60s and now it draws people down, and you have to stand out of the way for the SUVs and arranged robbers coming down to take to children to the Catholic school.

[1:53:47] We should avoid combining NCD2 and 3 from what this lady talked about.

[1:53:53] I think that two entirely separate communities.

[1:53:55] It's a small step to doplex, similar single-family homes.

[1:53:59] And I guess we need to protect our homes.

[1:54:01] and NCD2 has different needs than NCD3.

[1:54:06] Why are we redoing NCD3 at all?

[1:54:08] A disparity in a lot of size should not invite abuse,

[1:54:12] in case the house is on multiple watts.

[1:54:15] And I thank you very much for the time.

[1:54:25] Next week we're going to.

[1:54:26] My name is Carol Garvin.

[1:54:28] I live at 1815 Taggartale.

[1:54:31] I'm sorry, ma'am.

[1:54:31] You need to bring the mic closer.

[1:54:33] It's very hard to hear you.

[1:54:36] This, okay.

[1:54:37] My name is Carol Garvin.

[1:54:39] I live at 1815 Taggart, I lived here 50 years.

[1:54:44] I've seen a lot of changes.

[1:54:47] I have a question for you because I know this concerns affordable housing.

[1:54:54] What is the price range of this affordable housing going to be?

[1:54:59] I'm curious about that.

[1:55:01] Can you tell me that?

[1:55:03] So the units that would be allowed by the density bonus are going to be, there's two tiers.

[1:55:12] There's one that's worked, that's tied to workforce housing level and the other one that's tied to low income housing level.

[1:55:18] So those are tied to county numbers.

[1:55:23] So I would have to check my references to give you an accurate number.

[1:55:27] But I believe for the low-income rate, it's between nine and 1200 depending on the number of bedrooms.

[1:55:38] And that's about 40% higher for the workforce housing.

[1:55:46] So I can get with you and show you the exact numbers that are based on the, it's tied to the county's average median income.

[1:55:54] Well, the thing that I don't understand is why would you want to put workforce housing in

[1:56:08] like North and South Grove where the property alone no matter how you do it when you split

[1:56:16] it, it's still really high.

[1:56:18] Yeah, so happy to respond to that.

[1:56:20] These are only available in T4 and T5 zoning districts.

[1:56:27] So that's effectively that does not include

[1:56:29] that excludes North and South Grove already.

[1:56:33] Because I feel that you do need to address

[1:56:36] affordable housing in West Grove,

[1:56:39] because the people that settled West Grove,

[1:56:43] their families are still there.

[1:56:45] And it's not easy for these people.

[1:56:47] The taxes are so high.

[1:56:51] So the areas where this is going to apply are primarily in West Grove, but also includes

[1:56:56] the 27th Avenue corridor, for instance.

[1:57:00] But I feel like lots splitting in North and South Grove, and putting what's called, it was said,

[1:57:11] affordable housing, where you're already paying a lot of money for the land.

[1:57:15] There won't be any of that in the North or South Grove felt because of this.

[1:57:19] Thank you.

[1:57:20] Thank you, ma'am.

[1:57:22] Next speaker.

[1:57:22] So I count one, two, three, four more speakers.

[1:57:26] So three more speakers.

[1:57:28] So after.

[1:57:30] Go ahead.

[1:57:30] Thank you.

[1:57:30] Hello.

[1:57:31] My name is Dorian Will Cicero.

[1:57:33] I live at 3842.

[1:57:34] Come quite Avenue.

[1:57:36] And I've lived there since 1977.

[1:57:39] I bought my house from the original builder.

[1:57:42] And it was great to have a relationship like that.

[1:57:45] with somebody who built a house on a date county prime that he actually cut from his own land.

[1:57:53] I mean, but those, you know, that's a pioneer and many of us, we probably feel like pioneers

[1:57:59] because we've been in the grove so long, but you know, I think there's so many issues

[1:58:04] that we keep bringing back up over and over again, and I'm sure you're sick of hearing

[1:58:09] it, and we're probably sick of saying it, but we don't want lots of splitting, that's

[1:58:14] bottom line.

[1:58:20] We want affordable housing where it should be and so people can actually afford it

[1:58:26] because as Carol said, what is affordable housing? And there is affordable housing at the end

[1:58:32] of my street which was the St. Hughes development and you know my son who's a young man

[1:58:38] he can't afford to go in there. I mean you know he's trying to buy a house in the Grove too and

[1:58:44] He's probably never going, I'm going to have to leave him my house, so when I die, that's what's

[1:58:49] going to happen.

[1:58:50] As far as having these mother-in-law, sheds, or whatever, you know, there were a lot of them

[1:58:57] in the grove.

[1:58:58] In my neighborhood, they're all over the place and guess what, developers come in, not

[1:59:03] these beautiful houses down with carriage houses, and then nothing happens, it's just a ugly

[1:59:08] lot, and I have one across the street, and then I have a god-awful, zero-allot-line gigantic

[1:59:14] box with a tree in the center with a it's three stories high not even two stories

[1:59:20] high it's three stories high with a pool that overflows all the time into

[1:59:25] its own electrical box and the fire department is there all the time because of

[1:59:29] this I mean you know let's preserve what we have let's stop removing trees and

[1:59:35] let's just get on with listening to what the people have to say thank you

[1:59:44] Mark Coleman, 3085 Colusa Street. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Board, for this opportunity.

[1:59:50] First, I do want to say I want to thank staff because I'm getting a lot of grief tonight, but they really have tried and worked very hard.

[1:59:58] We have a lot of people here.

[2:00:00] Met with a lot of people and, you know, I'm one of the ones that have listened to me. They haven't agreed to everything I've said, but I understand that their position are coming from, but I do want to compliment them on that.

[2:00:10] First item, I want to say that we need to really go back and incorporate some of the original intent language that was in the original NCD.

[2:00:18] It's our protection there in case there's gray areas or disputes that come up. And in zoning that always happens and so it's important to have the original protections there to go back and look at the intent.

[2:00:30] Talking about FLR, right now there's reposal in there for what they call a tree bone

[2:00:35] is 1.15, that puts the FLR from 0.5 up to 0.65, now this is FLR, this is not a lot coverage.

[2:00:43] Visual lot coverage was 80%.

[2:00:45] When the FLR you add in your porches, your verandas, car porches and things like that,

[2:00:52] you'll almost beat back to the 80% bot coverage that we have currently right now.

[2:00:57] So, if, and I think that just about everybody, every developer, every builder, will try to avail themselves of this bonus.

[2:01:06] So, the FLR will go from 0.5 to really 0.65.

[2:01:10] That will be the new base standard.

[2:01:12] And it really will not reduce our park up in the size of the buildings, hardly at all.

[2:01:20] Also, on the actually the duplex areas, it's even worse.

[2:01:24] they'll go up to 0.9 FLR. Currently allowed in one lot coverage. Again, when you add

[2:01:33] these cover areas back to where they are right now. So please, let's not have a loophole

[2:01:39] to add additional FLR. 0.5 is still a very good FLR on a 5,000 square foot lot. You can have

[2:01:46] 2500 square feet of air conditioned space as in addition to verandas, and you know on a

[2:01:54] 10,000 square foot house, a lot that's a 5,000 square feet air conditioned, so those are still very large.

[2:01:59] Thank you.

[2:02:00] Thank you.

[2:02:01] Next speaker please.

[2:02:04] Next speaker please.

[2:02:05] No one.

[2:02:05] You got a six, sir.

[2:02:06] Did you want to respond to that?

[2:02:09] Yeah.

[2:02:09] Good point.

[2:02:11] I think that was contradictory to some other statements.

[2:02:15] I mean, I do think we will, we can look at some of the original intent language if it's been omitted.

[2:02:24] But regarding, I mean, I think, I don't know what we would be rehashing about the reduction

[2:02:31] versus the bonus on the bonus of the people going to bail themselves for the trees.

[2:02:37] I think it will be very difficult to make that work on every lot.

[2:02:42] And then regarding the doplex, yes, it's 0.75 by right up to 0.9, that's still a 10% reduction compared to what's allowed by now, which we still feel is significant.

[2:02:57] Quick question from Mr. Coleman.

[2:03:01] I know you've been very concerned with the diversity in architecture, because you addressed that point.

[2:03:06] Yeah, I mean the current code basically the way it says you've got 0.5 on the ground floor and you got 0.3 so guess what that's exactly what you get every house gets built at 0.5

[2:03:17] Lot coverage on the ground floor and 0.3 for the 0.8. That's how you max that max out these lots. The new code

[2:03:24] new proposal is is better in the sense that the size is smaller, but really it's very restricted you got 0.35 on the ground floor and

[2:03:31] point one five and you've been bonus up to point two five or whatever on the second floor but guess what everybody's going to build those houses exactly that same way

[2:03:38] you're not going to get diversity in massing so I think what we need to do is to keep the FLR low because that

[2:03:45] restricts the overall size of the house but give sort of diversity in whether you want to go to a larger ground floor so you build a one story house which some of the people spoke very well about

[2:03:55] Or you can build a two story house. People should have options. One story house is can actually preserve canopy because a lot of these old houses were one story in the trees.

[2:04:05] It basically growing over them. If you build a one story house, maybe bigger than one story house, but you can still keep that canopy.

[2:04:11] You put a two story house guess what all those limbs get chopped off. Yes, they may keep the trunk, but they only keep half the fruits and only keep half the canopy.

[2:04:19] So we should give some variety there. So the people can build a house at one story.

[2:04:22] The important thing is to keep the overall size of the house down to the .5 FLR.

[2:04:33] There's a mild reply there that the .35 and the second floor, it doesn't guarantee

[2:04:39] a .35 and one-five, you can also do 30-20, you can also, like, they're still additional

[2:04:44] forms 25 percent, 25 percent that are still available there.

[2:04:50] Could I just read that one thing also, you know, we're comparing apples and oranges here, because

[2:04:55] when we say we can go to .9 FLR on the duplex zones

[2:05:00] that it was really .1, that was a lot coverage.

[2:05:02] And those are two different measurements.

[2:05:04] So when you take a .9 FLR and you add a carport,

[2:05:09] you add a porch, you add a veranda to that.

[2:05:11] You can actually exceed the current .1.0 FLR on the site.

[2:05:16] And the same thing, quite the same scale

[2:05:19] can happen on the one story.

[2:05:21] So we got .65 FLR.

[2:05:23] We can bonus that, or you can add your reports, your Miranda, and things like that, a carport, and you're going to be actually backed up to very close to the point eight, a lot of coverages of the current code.

[2:05:38] Just the counterpoint there is that the green space rules in that case. So it's just sort of how it's sliced.

[2:05:48] Ron Nelson, 25, 35, and Nagua Avenue. I think, I'm sure the common theme houses are just getting too big.

[2:05:56] If you remember back prior to 2007, when we had a recession, the groves in here screaming about

[2:06:03] McMansians.

[2:06:04] It was the size, the mass of the house.

[2:06:06] It wasn't a white cube.

[2:06:09] It was a McMansian.

[2:06:10] It was a faux Mediterranean huge house on a lot that it was just too big for.

[2:06:16] So it's the same thing.

[2:06:18] I don't care whether their cubes are their McMansians or what the style of architecture is.

[2:06:22] we're taking over the people want to build now

[2:06:24] from a lot line to a lot line, which didn't occur before.

[2:06:27] So we need to figure out how to handle the sizing.

[2:06:32] Under 11,000 people came in for special exceptions all the time.

[2:06:37] And that was one thing, my 21 was supposed to help

[2:06:39] do away with, but we're getting back to waivers and warrants

[2:06:42] for every property.

[2:06:43] We need to stop that.

[2:06:44] There needs to be a rule.

[2:06:45] That's what coconut grove is asking for.

[2:06:47] We want a rule.

[2:06:48] We want to draw a line as this is what you can do.

[2:06:50] Number of waivers and warrants.

[2:06:51] no more special exceptions.

[2:06:54] No more bonuses.

[2:06:57] That's what gets us so crazy.

[2:06:59] I mean, you know, we're talking about offering 15% from more trees.

[2:07:03] We don't even have the enforcement to maintain the trees we have.

[2:07:06] So we're going to give a guy 15% for building, for adding a tree, which will disappear,

[2:07:13] and no one will ever make them put the tree back.

[2:07:16] So let's forget bonuses for adding more trees.

[2:07:19] I appreciate Jeremy's work and he's trying to work with both sides, but we're right back

[2:07:25] to the older 11,000 code where we're offering all kinds of crazy bonuses for doing particular

[2:07:31] things and nobody keeps track of it and it falls away.

[2:07:35] We shouldn't make rule in what it is.

[2:07:40] Ancillary unit, it's not on dueplex lots, please.

[2:07:44] It's not the white box issue, it's the mass.

[2:07:49] Large street should be a requirement, not just for bonuses, you just require large trees,

[2:07:54] you'll get them, not in the other way.

[2:07:57] T4, don't give an increase to 150 per acre, it should be 65 per acre.

[2:08:05] What was my three-bone six-diff set seven is rooftop access, rooftop areas should count in your, in your, in your, for your ratio.

[2:08:14] I can't include a set up there.

[2:08:15] And conclusion.

[2:08:17] One more is all I had.

[2:08:18] Include the intent language, which was mentioned earlier.

[2:08:21] Intent is very important.

[2:08:23] It makes it clear and it gives you a legal standing.

[2:08:26] Please.

[2:08:26] Thank you.

[2:08:27] City, do you have any comments?

[2:08:30] Uh, a couple specific things we've actually gone back and reduced the T-46.

[2:08:35] We have done that, I think, one of the things I do need to speak to somewhat in defense of our environmental resources division.

[2:08:46] They are fully staffed for the first time in their existence as of just a couple months ago, and we've already seen enforcement action and field visits increase pretty dramatically, because they're able to finally handle both the permitting and going out into the field.

[2:09:03] So I hope that's something that everyone appreciates and starts to see them out in the field more.

[2:09:10] Regarding the houses being too big, massing, you know, that's what we're here for.

[2:09:15] That's what we're trying to address, I think primarily.

[2:09:19] It's just the big difference seems to be, is this 0.65 to much of an additional.

[2:09:26] I think that seems to be the crux for a lot of this.

[2:09:31] And then rooftop access, we have limited the size and location of rooftop access points.

[2:09:39] So we believe we have at least partially addressed that concern.

[2:09:44] And I think that's already addressed intent.

[2:09:48] Thank you, sir.

[2:09:50] Chris, one child of a 3904 local plot, I've been a grove I for 45 years.

[2:09:55] I've owned three different knots on local ed Avenue, including two that I still own that

[2:10:01] beautiful 14,000 foot lots. One of which has just a 900 square foot home on it. I've been

[2:10:09] approached repeatedly by developers who want to buy that property and I ask from what do you

[2:10:16] want to do with it? Well, I'm going to split it of course. I'm going to put two houses on it.

[2:10:21] Well, why don't you just put one house on it? Well, I can't make any money that way.

[2:10:28] The

[2:10:28] around two houses.

[2:10:30] I don't know how anybody in the Grove is benefited

[2:10:33] by this type of lots fitting, which is being allowed

[2:10:37] and has been allowed in the past, except the developer.

[2:10:41] Certainly it hasn't developed.

[2:10:42] It certainly has benefited the neighbors.

[2:10:47] It's just taken away their property values.

[2:10:51] It hasn't benefited the Grove.

[2:10:53] And what protections are we going to have?

[2:10:56] This is going to prevent what was previously

[2:10:58] a nice 100-foot, by 140-foot lot, single-family home, or somebody can come in and split it.

[2:11:07] Where's the protection that's going to happen right now that requires a warrant for somebody

[2:11:12] to get it, and there's huge objection in the neighborhoods when that happens.

[2:11:17] So where is the practice of my understanding is this is going to disappear in terms of protections?

[2:11:23] Is that correct?

[2:11:23] Are there still going to require, if a previous lot, there was a single family dwelling is it going to be restricted to be a single family dwelling?

[2:11:37] There's a couple of points.

[2:11:39] I think by implication of, we've included a map that is partially a reproduction of the SD-18 and the previous overlays that limited the sizes of lots that could result from them.

[2:11:53] management. So we've actually, we're bringing that back, I think that's going to address

[2:11:59] most of the concerns, just right off the bat, it's going to reduce drastically the number

[2:12:05] of lots that are even available to be split, and it will also reduce the resulting, it'll

[2:12:11] limit the number of, so currently like it's 20,000 square for a lot might be split into four,

[2:12:17] this is going to buy district, limit that, and some districts that might be non-splitable at all,

[2:12:23] another one, it might be only two. And where we've seen those are a lot of those areas where

[2:12:29] there were more than one dwelling unit before. So it'll keep it more consistent. And again,

[2:12:37] the criteria include things like you may not cut down specimen trees and they have to be accommodated

[2:12:43] for any sort of lot. They can still split a lot. In some cases, yes. Okay. Yeah. And that's just

[2:12:51] Taking away the value of the neighbor's property and taking away the value of the grove to us who live here.

[2:13:00] So I would like to encourage you to look at the map.

[2:13:04] I would encourage you to look at the map and see where that's still really possible.

[2:13:10] Because I think you'll find it. It's greatly diminished and it's most diminished in the neighborhoods.

[2:13:15] I think there are several places on my screen.

[2:13:18] Thank you.

[2:13:18] Yeah, sir.

[2:13:20] Thank you.

[2:13:20] Yes, ma'am.

[2:13:21] I'm good evening. My name is Melissa Tappinas. I live at 3767 Carmen Court in South

[2:13:27] Coconut Grove. I'm very proud to have lived in Coconut Grove my entire adult life.

[2:13:33] I say that because I grew up in Little Havana and I used to be bust to Sun Settlementary

[2:13:38] and I would drive down 17th Avenue and base where drive and main highway and in Grum and

[2:13:45] I would ask my sister, who lives in these beautiful houses where the sunlight shines through

[2:13:51] these oak trees, I thought that there must be royalty.

[2:13:55] My sister told me doctors and lawyers, so she became the doctor.

[2:13:59] I became the lawyer, and I live in South Coconut Grove.

[2:14:03] My love of trees inspired me to study geography, or have been designed, become a land-use

[2:14:07] lawyer that appears before you.

[2:14:09] And I'm here to tell you, as you already know, the NCD needs a lot of work.

[2:14:14] Someone used the word despair as a land use lawyer that tries to mitigate and facilitate

[2:14:21] Settlements between Developers and neighbors. I can tell you. I'm absolutely exhausted

[2:14:28] The amount of pro bono work that is required to deal with the tree issues and enforcing

[2:14:35] The cities enforcement or lack thereof of enforcement of chapter

[2:14:40] 17, 23, and Miami 21 is really difficult to deal with.

[2:14:47] I can tell you that through this process, I've attended many meetings, workshops, and meetings with both the administration, and Jeremy specifically, and the goal has been.

[2:15:00] Not to deal with loopholes, because loopholes, I'm a lawyer. They're written for a purpose. Each word has an intent. So they're not loopholes. They actually have an intent behind them. And we were all around, or I was around when NCD was originally created as a response to Home Depot, Coconut Grove, where my firm represented Home Depot, Coconut Grove at the time.

[2:15:21] And then I stood before this board, when Miami 21 came about and I was very, if you would

[2:15:28] remind, I would love to have just a couple more minutes.

[2:15:32] When Miami 21 came about, we were very concerned about Miami 21 and how it would fit with the

[2:15:38] NCD.

[2:15:39] Coconut Grove was a place that it was live and let live.

[2:15:43] It was a happy go lucky place.

[2:15:44] It is not that any longer.

[2:15:47] It's a divisive, controversial, difficult place to live in many ways.

[2:15:52] There are more associations per street now than there ever has been before.

[2:15:57] St. Goddons has three associations. Luckily, my neighborhood is quite peaceful.

[2:16:01] We have one association and although we have a lot of new construction and like most people,

[2:16:06] some we like and some we don't like.

[2:16:09] What I can tell you what we all like are encouraging people to redevelop their properties

[2:16:13] in a way that's consistent with the neighborhood and if they could add addictions.

[2:16:18] So I have three points on the actual code provision and I'm not sure what is happening here.

[2:16:26] But anyway on the actual code provisions and I think this is important because this is what we're

[2:16:32] asking the city to do as a recommending board is this is not a mob democracy.

[2:16:37] These are real property rights that we're here to defend and the neighbors are concerned

[2:16:43] about their properties, we should all be concerned about everyone's properties, including our own.

[2:16:48] So, a lot coverage, I believe, I want to be fair to everyone.

[2:16:53] I'll give you one more minute.

[2:16:55] So, I use it a lot.

[2:16:56] I believe many people had more than two minutes, but I will thank you for one more minute.

[2:17:00] I'm glad you reminded me, many people have gotten more than two minutes.

[2:17:04] I'll spend a little more of your time letting you know that I've given a lot of people extra minutes.

[2:17:08] Thank you.

[2:17:09] So, if you could just...

[2:17:10] So, if I could, thank you.

[2:17:13] I believe that one story houses should be encouraged.

[2:17:17] I believe that I don't know, again, I believe that they should be increased.

[2:17:25] The lock coverage to 50%, that is what is historical and coconut growth for one story

[2:17:30] houses.

[2:17:31] I believe the green space, like Mr. Trister said, should be 40%, that is still quite a drastic

[2:17:37] increase from what we have today.

[2:17:39] I believe that existing properties as of the effective date of this ordinance should be grandfathered so that they're not all rendered illegally non-conforming despite having microphone records or whatever it took place in the early 1900s at the city of Miami

[2:17:55] I believe that article 7 of Miami 21 dealing with non-conformities should apply and the issue of lots splitting is one of property rights even coral gables does it although

[2:18:07] I don't want to live in Coral Gables, and I don't want to live on Miami Beach or South Miami.

[2:18:11] I choose to live in the city of Miami.

[2:18:14] And the lot splits are allowed.

[2:18:15] I just did one in Coral Gables and tables of states actually.

[2:18:19] And they're done with criteria.

[2:18:21] And that's what this does.

[2:18:22] Thank you.

[2:18:23] Let's see what the city has to say.

[2:18:24] Welcome to stay.

[2:18:30] Let's see.

[2:18:32] So we're going to start.

[2:18:34] One story.

[2:18:35] A lot coverage.

[2:18:36] One story.

[2:18:37] I think the discomfort with that is the only way we can really make that work.

[2:18:42] if we significantly reduce green space, because if we say 50%, but we're only requiring 40%

[2:18:48] green space, the 10% left over for hard escape is going to be basically a path or a drive

[2:18:56] way. Although, I mean, we're certainly hearing enough about that, that we may revisit that.

[2:19:04] Should it be like the inverse? Like if you have 50% green space and you only have a one story

[2:19:08] should it be allowed the inverse of 50% lock coverage?

[2:19:15] If the percent green space is the requirement,

[2:19:19] and you're allowed to go more if you go to your second floor,

[2:19:23] shouldn't if green space is 50% the lock, the inverse,

[2:19:26] should be 50% should be allowed for one story residences

[2:19:29] to have the lock coverage.

[2:19:31] If not, there's like this.

[2:19:34] I'm sorry, I'm still not.

[2:19:35] 50% of it.

[2:19:36] I would need it drawn out, I'm sorry.

[2:19:38] A square half of it is green space the other half if it's a one-story house should be allowed to be a lot coverage

[2:19:46] which includes the pools the

[2:19:50] And everything else the structure we have that effectively now that you have the it's the 35% under AC

[2:20:00] 35% but the other so right, but there's a lot of non-conformities that we're dealing with with this code does is

[2:20:07] render a lot of one story, all the one story houses and coconut grove will be non-conforming.

[2:20:13] And as many people have said, I think I do think we will be happy to incorporate language

[2:20:18] about the non-conformity. I think that's a good suggestion.

[2:20:23] And, yeah, to be honest, we're going

[2:20:24] to look at the encouraging for one story. In front of Matt Ruralande, which we lived in our first

[2:20:30] place in Harvard Hill while we were in school. And we all, you know, it could be a smaller house

[2:20:36] you want to have an addition, and it could 50%, so let it be.

[2:20:40] You still have your 50%, green space if that's really the intent.

[2:20:43] That's my point.

[2:20:44] I think that's fair.

[2:20:46] I think the article 7 applying and making sure incorporating something about existing properties

[2:20:52] being grandfathered is certainly, I don't know if it makes it into the appendix language, but

[2:20:58] into the legislation.

[2:21:01] Thank you.

[2:21:02] Can you get through your questions?

[2:21:03] Your questions?

[2:21:04] Yes, the only thing left is the green space at 40% which I think anyone who's really reviewed their home and home values would agree with.

[2:21:15] Thank you.

[2:21:19] Good evening.

[2:21:21] I am Kathy Park Sora's 4035 Battersea Road.

[2:21:25] Miami 33133.

[2:21:31] Affordable housing on Grand Avenue that we're losing.

[2:21:35] I just want everybody to understand that affordable housing is a very subjective word.

[2:21:40] And it's, it's times the offensive and the last thing we need is for a developer with a must, a master use special permit, a major use special permit that just was a renewed to give us little tiny apartments for families at a low rate, that's what we'll end up with, that's what they were going to give us the last time.

[2:22:04] So we need to understand what affordable housing really means and all the levels of which it covers.

[2:22:12] The green spaces and the parks and all that kind of stuff is really a hard one too when we can't even use our Brewster Park.

[2:22:20] Our kids cannot even play on our Brewster Park anymore.

[2:22:24] The park is running out to soccer, lacrosse, and everybody in between.

[2:22:29] And our kids can't play there and we have to go play somewhere else.

[2:22:33] That's another issue.

[2:22:34] So when you have to understand how hard it is for people to swallow some of these things,

[2:22:41] the empty lots and the trash, the capital improvements and the code enforcement in one

[2:22:46] part of the grove versus the other three areas of the grove is significantly different.

[2:22:51] It's really hard to sit here and listen to some of those about the trees and stuff because

[2:22:54] I am about the trees and I love my trees and I live in on 13,000 square foot lot with

[2:22:58] a lot of beautiful trees.

[2:23:00] But when the people from the West Grove come to my house with their evictions and they see

[2:23:04] debitiful trees on my block, and then there's no trees on their block.

[2:23:08] And then they come to meetings like this and they hear the green spaces and the parks and stuff like that.

[2:23:13] Sometimes they just leave because it really hurts their feelings.

[2:23:16] I wrote something in November of 2016, and I was surprised that the Harold actually posted it.

[2:23:22] Anyone who drives into Coca and I grow along Grand Avenue as seen the same blighted buildings despite

[2:23:27] 13 years of promises for revitalization, which would be 15 now.

[2:23:31] Just ask yourselves if it looks like that on the outside, what does it look like on the

[2:23:35] inside?

[2:23:36] For some large support thousands of attendants live in squalor demonstrates a complete breakdown

[2:23:40] of just government inequality before the law.

[2:23:43] These areas of the West Grove are more similar to the apartheid of South Africa 50 years ago

[2:23:48] than the modern tropical oasis on the cover of Ritzi magazines.

[2:23:51] We cannot allow money to corrupt our morals and our politics with the destruction of our traditions

[2:23:56] of historical communities as a result.

[2:23:59] I'm just the white lady who drives around in a golf cart trying to help, but I must ask,

[2:24:04] where's the outrage?

[2:24:06] So I want to know how long we have to sit on the empty lots with the mattresses and the

[2:24:12] trees and the broken windows before the city is going to do something about that, because

[2:24:16] that seems to be as important as to me as the trees are to me and everybody else.

[2:24:22] I think that's an issue.

[2:24:25] This

[2:24:30] is not primarily issues that are addressed through the land use regulations,

[2:24:37] would be the main point.

[2:24:39] I think we're trying most of the address, the things we're trying to do with affordability.

[2:24:44] You know, we're trying to sort of set up the skeleton that additional infrastructure, additional resources can fit into to help with affordability.

[2:24:53] But primarily, you know, these aren't things that we can adjust to dress through.

[2:24:58] This is one of many tools that we need to employ.

[2:25:02] Well, Frankie Shannon Rolls already been sound for that.

[2:25:05] The Frankie Shannon Rolls, 3750, the government's building that's on the corner.

[2:25:12] The one last question on the, I just want to understand with the granny plots and stuff

[2:25:17] the West Grove and the wooden houses. If the lot is 3,500 or 4,950 or 3,450, are they still

[2:25:25] going to be able to add on?

[2:25:26] Yeah, if they're historic. If it's a historic.

[2:25:29] So they can have the no-green space and they can have the over-build on the FAR.

[2:25:35] So yeah, once a property is historic, once it goes through a headboard for approval, they have

[2:25:40] a lot more leeway on dealing with regulations.

[2:25:46] Yes, ma'am.

[2:25:49] Joyce Nelson, 25, 35, and Nagu Avenue.

[2:25:53] I moved to the grove in 74.

[2:25:55] I've been always proud of the grove.

[2:25:58] But I'm not proud anymore.

[2:26:00] We need to fix this.

[2:26:01] And this has been going on for two years, I believe.

[2:26:05] Trying to rewrite the NCD.

[2:26:08] It was made to preserve the historic heavily landscape character of

[2:26:12] of residential areas, and Hansen protect COVID-19 grows natural features as the

[2:26:17] three canopy and green space and protect architectural variety within the unique single

[2:26:24] family neighborhood. What happened to that? Why do we have sugar cubes? They don't fit

[2:26:31] into this at all, but they're being approved. I have received this many waivers since October.

[2:26:38] How can I possibly look into this, appeal this, understand all this, I'd have to live

[2:26:46] downtown and I don't?

[2:26:49] We have to stop this, we have to fix this, and the NCD can do that, it can do that, but we

[2:26:57] have to stop looking at affordable housing, I'm sorry, but the grove is not affordable anymore.

[2:27:05] I'm lucky.

[2:27:06] I moved to a year ago.

[2:27:08] I could not live here.

[2:27:09] My cousin just moved here from West Virginia.

[2:27:13] She makes, she has a wonderful job.

[2:27:15] She can't live here.

[2:27:17] So who are we kidding?

[2:27:20] I'm lucky to have my home, you know, beautiful neighborhood

[2:27:24] of one story, small houses that are all different.

[2:27:29] I like that.

[2:27:30] I like that they're different.

[2:27:32] If I wanted to live at a planned development,

[2:27:34] I can do that in candelor or up in Pemberg Pines.

[2:27:38] I don't want that.

[2:27:38] I don't want every home to look the same.

[2:27:41] And that's what we're getting to.

[2:27:43] We need your help.

[2:27:47] The trees are being destroyed by these buildings.

[2:27:50] I have many pictures showing exactly what's happened.

[2:27:55] Next thing, the only other thing I wanted to talk about

[2:27:58] is the Granny Flats.

[2:28:00] I've been to at least seven meetings about this.

[2:28:03] No one mentioned Granny Flats ever.

[2:28:06] And it's in here now. I don't know how I got here. I live across the street from a two-story

[2:28:13] McMansion that got in somehow with a granny flat in the back. There is no parking for them. None.

[2:28:23] This we can't allow this. We can't have five cars parking out front because there's no drive. The driveway is this wide you can't get a car in there

[2:28:31] So we have to dig deeper, get to the right, and CD for everybody, and protect what we have.

[2:28:40] We're the oldest part of Miami, the oldest part, and people come here because it's beautiful.

[2:28:46] If you continue making sugar cubes, it's not going to be beautiful anymore.

[2:28:50] It's not going to be unique.

[2:28:53] We are unique,

[2:28:56] and we are very privileged to be here.

[2:28:58] And I thank everybody for their time and effort and trying to help in the planning department

[2:29:04] and Jeremy's been great and they're probably tired of hearing from us.

[2:29:08] So there's another meeting April 9th now on the planning of 37th Avenue.

[2:29:13] So how does that fit into this?

[2:29:16] I just got the email today.

[2:29:19] Now we're going to have another plan for 37th Avenue?

[2:29:24] I don't know.

[2:29:24] That's north of the US one.

[2:29:26] I don't like that. Thank you.

[2:29:32] Yeah, we're hosting the meeting at Armister, but the area of study is strictly north of U.S. one of U.S. one. I promise. That's bizarre. Okay. When you got, when you get, don't you believe that it would be for us?

[2:29:53] Could I have 30 seconds to explain what this is? I couldn't hear you say. No, I'm not going out.

[2:30:00] You've had your chance.

[2:30:02] If you pass something out to the board and your hand, could you please provide us a copy for the record?

[2:30:10] Thank you.

[2:30:11] All right, so with that, I close the discussion item.

[2:30:15] I have some handouts that I didn't get to see.

[2:30:17] Start down there and they'll make it way down to us.

[2:30:22] Is there anyone on the board who'd like to add to the discussion tonight?

[2:30:27] feedback for when city comes back or when the residents come back in terms of how we want

[2:30:33] to handle ourselves when this item is before us.

[2:30:36] I'm going to start on the end Mr. Gerson.

[2:30:42] I guess the thing everyone is reiterating that other people are reiterating is the lack

[2:30:49] of enforcement or the issues with enforcement.

[2:30:53] But I think it is great that there is a department that is now fully staffed.

[2:31:00] I've drawn all this time.

[2:31:07] But when there

[2:31:12] have been a few people that have made the comment that the tree issue, you know,

[2:31:21] sort of is at the heart of some of the other issues.

[2:31:24] It's even a lot coverage to some degrees about what it does to the tree canopy, and this

[2:31:32] isn't really technical, but we know that the city no matter how hard it tries is not

[2:31:40] going to do the job that needs to be done for the neighborhood if that's what the neighborhood

[2:31:47] once. And so I also think that, you know, we've heard, we've heard this

[2:31:55] time and again, I've read stuff online about this, but I think that there's a

[2:32:02] place for some of this energy where there could be a, I mean, who, I'm sorry,

[2:32:11] Who here runs the website that lists pictures of their neighbors or developers that aren't actually neighbors trees being cut down?

[2:32:23] Who runs that website?

[2:32:28] If you're going to address this, come right up to the mic so we can all hear you.

[2:32:38] I'm not sure if you, if this is what you're referring to, but there is an organization called the Grove Watch Group, which is monitoring development over development,

[2:32:50] lots splitting, tree cutting, et cetera.

[2:32:54] And posting pictures on a website and on Facebook.

[2:32:58] I think that that type of thing, I'm going to get some more technical stuff that Jeremy can actually help us with.

[2:33:03] But I just want to say that something specifically targeted towards tree removal and the slow

[2:33:14] tree removal that seems to happen over seasons when someone has the time to just slowly

[2:33:19] ride it out for anyone finally sees the trees gone.

[2:33:23] This happens in every neighborhood, not every neighborhood is as active, and not every neighborhood

[2:33:28] It has the amount of people willing to put it in the time, and I think that you would all

[2:33:35] be not to tell you what to do, but I know that you would all be well served by actually

[2:33:39] having a specific website specifically for that, picking someone on each street and documenting

[2:33:47] the time place and photographing this happening.

[2:33:50] There's not a long discussion.

[2:33:51] I'm just throwing that out there.

[2:33:52] I know that that would work.

[2:33:54] It's work.

[2:33:54] It works in other places.

[2:33:55] And I'm just going to throw that out there.

[2:33:58] So I'm just putting out that would help you all.

[2:34:06] I guess the question I have is more about the design.

[2:34:11] I reviewed stuff there were a couple of people that had a couple of interesting comments

[2:34:16] that for me made a lot of sense which were sort of a design review

[2:34:20] touching on that and how much focus in this rework has been put on that and do you think

[2:34:34] that you guys have put the time needed into that aspect of it for now?

[2:34:44] So, I am extremely reluctant to try and legislate style.

[2:34:49] I don't think it's anything that is usually successful.

[2:34:54] I think the things that people object to now is a style that didn't exist ten years ago.

[2:35:03] I don't know about the timeframe, but as we said, as I think Mr. Nelson said, there was an

[2:35:11] objection to make mansion before.

[2:35:13] The objection is to the massing.

[2:35:15] So, that's what we focused on trying to limit.

[2:35:19] I don't want to start to try and legislate style.

[2:35:21] We do, however, that being said,

[2:35:24] we do have established guidelines for West Grove

[2:35:27] that we're going to apply as they were originally intended

[2:35:30] and there was pretty significant drop off between the language and NCD2

[2:35:37] and what the intent was.

[2:35:40] So I think we've repaired that.

[2:35:41] So, one completely agree with you, wanted to hear you say that, I do think that that's a road that doesn't lead to the right place, but the idea of massing and showing the different masses were a few people that raised comments about sort of visual aids in this conversation, and I think every time that the city and this neighbor would get together, there should be pictures because they help, you know,

[2:36:11] and so I just would like to say that from here every time that we may or may not be talking

[2:36:20] about some of these ideas it's not about style but showing volumes and how they sit are super

[2:36:29] helpful in these conversations. So I would like to see that when this is, you know, I'm still talking.

[2:36:39] Are you asking her a question?

[2:36:49] And I guess just the final point, similar, vain.

[2:36:53] Mr. Coleman made the point that whatever the max available with bonuses and whatever

[2:37:02] will become the new standard, right?

[2:37:05] It doesn't matter sort of what the minimum is.

[2:37:08] Think everyone's going to push the envelope to whatever the max envelope is.

[2:37:13] not everyone but many people and just so I want to give way to every person in the neighborhood

[2:37:20] who's concerned about the max with all the add-ons and things like that and what that

[2:37:27] really looks like and encouraging you guys to be while not heavy handed in terms of design

[2:37:36] and things like that and maybe looking at that 10% reduction from where you guys are at now

[2:37:41] from 50 to 40 in green space,

[2:37:47] but that all the other stuff you look at it in terms of what

[2:37:51] the max possible is, and not being scared to push that down a little.

[2:38:01] Well, thank you, Mr. Gerson. You covered most of my points.

[2:38:15] I've lived in the Grove

[2:38:15] We have to remember that what caused all this is this treat estimation and an innovation

[2:38:21] of these bigger houses that we have to deal with.

[2:38:25] If we do nothing, it's nothing is done.

[2:38:28] We're going to keep getting what we got, which brought us to this point in the first place.

[2:38:31] So I do think change is necessary, and it's how that change is going to be orchestrated

[2:38:35] as what the big debate is.

[2:38:38] And John has been very involved with that a lot of people have.

[2:38:42] So, the main thing along with enforcement, which is over and over and over again, intent,

[2:38:47] the intent language, I think needs to be very, very strong, because that then guides the

[2:38:53] overall process.

[2:38:56] I do think we saw that there's a big divergence between the NCD2 and NCD3 on things like

[2:39:02] ADUs, which might, I don't think are going to fly in the NCD3, but I think in the, in the

[2:39:09] They're looking for more density because of the affordability, so I think you should look at that really carefully.

[2:39:15] There seems to be no support for these public benefits and bonuses are very little and was as carefully tailored.

[2:39:24] Maybe more so.

[2:39:26] I'd have to look at that very, because I know you're trying to put everything on Grand Avenue and Douglas, but that seems to have a lot of resistance.

[2:39:34] The architectural diversity, Mr. Coleman, I think, addressed that very, very well, and I know

[2:39:39] you've been talking to him.

[2:39:46] Finally, Marcelo's point for an end is about if there needs to be some official somebody

[2:39:52] in power that looks at grow issues.

[2:39:55] I don't know where the village council can drum up support for funding for that, but I don't

[2:40:00] think that's going to fly unless we do find funding.

[2:40:02] And all the robots who show up and is very mostly wealthy community, saying we want this and this and this and this.

[2:40:10] If there's no funding for it, the cities, other four commissioners are going to say good luck with that.

[2:40:15] So I would strongly suggest that maybe we find a way to finance something that would give us more coverage for trees and all the other issues.

[2:40:25] Because this overall struggle is the issue of zoning, property rights, and I should say

[2:40:32] Rick Zellman there, and Melissa, property rights and zoning regulations always conflict.

[2:40:38] There's always got to be a balanced Mr. Treeshurst spoke about it. But that's the conflict.

[2:40:42] You're not going to be able to satisfy both groups. It's got to be somewhere in the middle

[2:40:46] where people don't think they're getting screwed out of their property rights, and the overall

[2:40:50] value of the grove is protected for the whole community, and that's just preaching to the choir, I know Jeremy, and that's what you're working on.

[2:40:57] But don't think you can get everything guys, because you're either for property rights or you're for protecting the community,

[2:41:03] and there's a big conflict that it's always going on in zoning law, always.

[2:41:08] So that's all I have to say about that.

[2:41:13] I think to my right.

[2:41:17] Two things really stood out to me tonight.

[2:41:19] When the NCDs were first to set up,

[2:41:23] they were set up to protect these individual areas of the growth that are so unique.

[2:41:28] And I feel that from what I'm hearing,

[2:41:31] that by blending them back into the Miami-21 code,

[2:41:34] not back into but to put them into the Miami-21 code,

[2:41:38] I sense with a lot of people that are here tonight

[2:41:40] that have spoken, that they're concerned,

[2:41:43] that they're going to lose those protections

[2:41:45] once it's in part of the Miami 20, there won't be as much accountability, there won't

[2:41:50] be that protection, and I just think we really need to be very careful, the areas

[2:41:55] and C-2 and 3 are so different as we heard tonight, and the needs of the people in those

[2:42:02] areas are so unique, though if we're very careful that we don't take away the protections,

[2:42:07] but it's strongly represented.

[2:42:08] So I'd like to make something clear.

[2:42:12] The, this will remain as a separate index, separate from the bulk of my me 21, and just as it is now,

[2:42:20] it was NCD2 and 3, although I have to strongly advocate that this day as one, one NCD ordinance,

[2:42:31] covering both West Grove and the rest of the Grove, for a couple of reasons, because there's overlap

[2:42:37] and protections that are not there now, like the reason it's easier to develop in West

[2:42:43] Grove now is because the protections that are in NCD3 are not and do not apply there.

[2:42:49] So to a lot of the problems have become because of his split up and we also had tremendous

[2:42:54] support for unifying it in all of those initial public meetings.

[2:43:01] And I would also just like to bring up that the affordability issue in the public meetings

[2:43:06] in the surveys that we have actually was considered a more important issue than even lots of

[2:43:12] diminishment in those public meetings.

[2:43:17] So those public meetings carry a lot of weight because they were very well attended and

[2:43:24] there was a tremendous amount of support for unifying the NCDs at that time into one of us.

[2:43:31] And again, we are incorporating all of the protections and extending the protections in strengthening the protections of NCD2 in this ordinance.

[2:43:42] I appreciate you.

[2:43:43] Tonight answering everyone's questions and responding as well.

[2:43:46] She did.

[2:43:46] Thank you.

[2:43:47] I've just put a couple of comments from the chair.

[2:43:51] I live in an NCD1 and it's one page long.

[2:43:55] And it's been very easy for us lay persons who live in the neighborhood to interpret it, and it's pretty easy for the city to talk to us about it.

[2:44:05] You know, I know lawyers love 40, 50 page documents with a lot of clauses, so I would just be careful on what you sign up to that you.

[2:44:14] Even if you don't like what you signed up to, make sure you understand so how you can fight it when it does get passed.

[2:44:21] Because we've used our NCT quite a few times and the simple language works for us in our single

[2:44:28] family neighborhood and we've been able to protect it for as long as I've been involved

[2:44:36] in the neighborhood politics, so to speak.

[2:44:39] I also echoed the comments about code enforcement.

[2:44:43] I wonder, I think someone said that if it wasn't for code enforcement, maybe we wouldn't

[2:44:51] would have been taken care of a lot earlier and you might have been able to walk your way

[2:44:56] here versus having to come to a point where we're...

[2:45:00] It's just a lot of anxiety because what the city has already done to you.

[2:45:05] So there's probably some trust issues you guys have with the city, in my guess.

[2:45:09] And I go back to the NCD language, make sure you understand it.

[2:45:12] Even if you lose, make sure you think you lose, make sure you understand it.

[2:45:17] Thank you.

[2:45:18] I just wanted to ask, I think, thank you for the time in their input.

[2:45:22] It was such a short-up period of time between now and April, 18th, what your goal is from now

[2:45:31] and so then with the residents to try to come up with her visions of this that everyone's

[2:45:39] a little bit more comfortable with.

[2:45:42] And if you think that's achievable in two weeks.

[2:45:45] To be honest, getting something that everybody agrees on, I do not believe is achievable.

[2:45:51] I'll do respect.

[2:45:55] I do think there's a couple of tweaks that I've heard tonight that I'd like to look

[2:46:00] into the incentivizing the single story building, which has some moving pieces along with

[2:46:08] it.

[2:46:09] Honestly, I think that's the only thing that we would really want to propose changing.

[2:46:15] I feel like a lot of the concerns about ADUs, we've limited them to certain lot sizes already.

[2:46:28] And some of the other things that maybe there's some pushback on that we feel like we've already gotten to a good place compromise was.

[2:46:36] And I think I'm hoping that, you know, with the latest revision and the latest map change that everyone gets comfortable with the, the, the, the lot diminishment language, where it really is going to be very strong.

[2:46:51] It doesn't make the possibility of a lot to diminish, it doesn't make it impossible, but it makes it unlikely.

[2:46:58] and much more appropriate when they, if and when they are split, that they're not getting into much, much smaller lots in the, in the, in the, in the neighborhood.

[2:47:09] One of the, that was much, I thought was very important was the grandfathering of the non-conformity, like, which as well.

[2:47:17] And then last, I know there was not a lot of input here from the commercial, but I think attendance at that,

[2:47:26] meeting on the 10th is would be a very important

[2:47:31] question. I'm sorry. On the

[2:47:36] tree mitigation keeping it within a boundary versus the larger the city of

[2:47:43] large. I don't could you explain that would need to be a chapter 17 of

[2:47:49] a separate section of the code. I'm not going to ask for a ruling on that

[2:48:00] I remember you saying that if that's something that is a one or two line type of

[2:48:08] modification is that something that you would pursue sooner rather than later because I think that would go

[2:48:13] That's such a practical

[2:48:15] Simple makes sense everyone can wrap their head around a kind of the current language says within commission district

[2:48:21] Which is a large geographic area. I think I think I would hope that that could be something that

[2:48:29] that we could get on board with.

[2:48:31] So, that's something you're on board with.

[2:48:33] Yeah, I think I'll look into it.

[2:48:36] And then just back on my note about bringing pictures,

[2:48:39] bringing the map next time please and any other maps.

[2:48:44] More visual aids.

[2:48:46] Thank you.

[2:48:47] I can use myself and you with the public benefits comment.

[2:48:50] I am supportive of that.

[2:48:51] The way you've got it tailored for the affordable.

[2:48:54] I really meant to address the bonuses.

[2:48:55] I think you've got a severe pushback on the bonuses.

[2:48:58] They asked for 15%, so I think you need to look at that.

[2:49:03] Okay, that's what I meant.

[2:49:09] All right, thank you all.

[2:49:09] Thank you all for coming out tonight, and we look forward to seeing you back here in City Hall.

[2:49:50] Data Florida is a wonderful place.

[2:49:53] Diversity and amazing wildlife.

[2:49:56] Sunlit beaches, wetlands, forests, spring.

Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board Regular Meeting

Transcript