Loading...
Board Minutes PZ 11- 5-26Page 1 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 MIAMI SHORES VILLAGE PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2011 The regular meeting of the Miami Shores Planning Board, was held on Thursday, March 24, 2011 , at the Village Hall. Richard Fernandez, Chair at 7:00 P.M. with the following persons present, called the meeting to order: PRESENT: Richard Fernandez, Chairman Sid Reese John Busta Paul Madsen Robert Abramitis ALSO PRESENT: David Dacquisto, Zoning Director Valerie Bierley, Clerk Norman Bruhn, Building Official Richard Sarafan, Village Attorney BOARD MEMBER DISCLOSURES: Chairman Fernandez visited 9101 Park Dr., 1480 NE 103 St., 295 Grand Concourse and 10653 NE 6 Ave. Mr. Reese spoke with David Kitchen from the Presbyterian Church Mr. Abramitis visited all of the properties ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Proposed Amendment to the Miami Shores Village Code of Ordinances, Appendix A Zoning, Division 7. Quality of Buildings, To Add Sec. 523.2 Hybred roofs. An amendment to allow metal/clay tile hybrid roofs. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed application with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions The Village Attorney, Mr. Sarafan swore in all those participating in the meeting. The Chairman opened public comment and Mr. Arguelles requested no sunset law for this application. The Chairman closed public comment. The Board discussed the sunset law provision. Mr. Abramitis moved to forward the ordinance to council as is with the sunset ordinance included. Mr. Madsen seconded the motion. The vote was in favor of the motion 4-1. Mr. Busta voted no. Page 2 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 TABLED ITEMS: PZ 12-10-2010214 Osmar Osman DDS (Owner/Applicant) Lizbeth Vientos (Agent) 9101 Park Dr. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: Sec. 504: Signs. Wall Signs. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The board questioned staff about any surrounding buildings having a monument sign. The applicant and the owners addressed the Board. The Board questioned the applicant about the need for the monument sign. After a discussion by the board, Mr. Madsen moved to approve this application subject to all staff recommendations. Mr. Reese seconded the motion and the vote was in favor of the motion 3-2. Mr. Abramitis and Chairman Fernandez voted no. PZ 2-11-2011228 Shore Square Investments (Owner) Radio Shack (Applicant) Mia Fields (Agent) 9017 Biscayne Blvd. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: Sec. 504. Signs. Wall Signs. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning the difference between this sign request and the master signage designated to this building. The applicant did not address the Board. The Board did not question the applicant. Mr. Abramitis moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Madsen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. SCHEDULE ITEMS: PZ-3-11-2011232 Jose Castro (Owner/Applicant) 9701 Biscayne Blvd. ARTICLE VII. ERRORS AND VARIANCES; Sec. 702 Hardship variances: Sec 518. Fences walls and hedges. (a) Maximum Height. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended denial of the variance with a finding that the applicant has not met all four of the required criteria to grant the requested variance as required in the Code Of Ordinances. The applicant questioned staff why his recommendation was sec. 518(a). The board questioned staff concerning what he Page 3 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 is considering when analyzing this application. Staff responded with, “the applicant applied for consideration on a gate” and that is all staff is considering when he evaluates and recommends his conditions. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board questioned the applicant concerning permits for existing fence. The Board questioned Mr. Bruhn, the Building Official if he thought this gate would be difficult to change into compliance. After a discussion, Mr. Reese moved to table the application. Mr. Madsen seconded the motion. The vote was in favor of the motion 3-2. Mr. Abramitis and Chairman Fernandez voted no. PZ-2-11-2011229 Yiannis & Veronica Dumas (Owner/Applicant) 9650 N. Bayshore Dr. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523 & Sec. 523.1: Site Plan Approval, Sec. 604; Sec. 605: Construction, pool deck. The Chairman stepped out of the room. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended denial of the site plan with a finding that it is not consistent with the technical provision of the Code. The Board questioned staff about when was the pool built and how many feet/inches are on the setback. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board did not question the applicant. Mr. Madsen moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations and Mr. Busta seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 4-0. PZ-4-11-2011234 Jacqueline Tutiven (Owner/Applicant) Oscar Longa (Agent) 1130 NE 92 St. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523 & Sec. 523.1: Site Plan approval, Sec. 604; Sec. 605: Construction Addition front entrance. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning the size of the driveway and the size of the front set back and grass verses paved area. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board did not question the applicant. Mr. Reese moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations and Mr. Madsen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. PZ-4-11-2011235 Swiss Property Management Corp(Owner) Oliver Oberhauser (Applicant) Todd Martin (Agent) 1480 NE 103 St. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: & Sec 523.1 Site Plan Approval, Sec. 604; Sec. 605: Construction, Addition Second Story. Page 4 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning architectural style and the amount of flat roofs in that neighborhood. The Board questioned Mr. Bruhn concerning the change order and how he would determine the value and construction of this nature other than looking at the change order. The applicant addressed the Board. After a discussion by the Board, Mr. Madsen moved to table this application until the next meeting. Mr. Busta seconded the motion and the vote was in favor of the motion 4-1. Mr. Reese voted no. PZ 1-11-2011222 Tracy Franklin Zazadze (Owner/Applicant) Mark Campbell (Agent) 77 NE 100 St. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: Site Plan Approval, Sec. 523.1 Construction, Addition and garage conversion. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The applicant nor the Board had any questions for staff. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board did not question the applicant. Mr. Reese moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. PZ-4-11-2011236 Joann & Neil Hart (Owner/Applicant) Mark Campbell (Agent) 295 Grand Concourse Special Approvals, Sec. 600 & 523: Site Plan approval, Sec. 523.1 Construction Garage conversion. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning the A/C unit placement. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board did not question the applicant. Mr. Busta moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations with a change to move the two A/C units closer together. Mr. Reese seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. Page 5 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 PZ-4-11-2011237 Presbyterian Church (Owner) David Kinchen (Applicant) 9405 Park Dr. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: Sec. 518(b): Construction. Fence front yard. ARTICLE VII ERRORS AND VARIANCES; Sec. 702 Hardship variances: Sec. 518. Fences walls and hedges. (a) Maximum height. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning the building and the height of the fence in the back. They also questioned him of any knowlage of Children and Family services requiring fence height. **NOTE** There is no front yard on this property. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board questioned the applicant; is one of the reasons you want to build these fences to protect the children from people coming in to harm them? Both ways, there has not been an incident where someone has entered the property over the fences to get to a child, but that is a concern to be prevented. The real problem is the attractive nuisance problem after hours. People go into the playground all the time and someone tried to light one of the shade structures on fire. As far as chain link fence goes, there are some with green and appear to be coated with some sort of vinyl or heavy paint. The church has looked into placing black vinyl coating to match the wrought iron they are putting up. There are three major church schools within the boundaries of Miami Shores. How would you address other churches with schools coming to us asking for the same grant we are giving you? The one unique feature here is the division between a preschool and the railroad right of way. Which doesn’t exists any place else in Miami Shores, which makes the circumstances different. A dangerous area that frankly you are not supposed to be on in a no trespassing area and every time one of the teachers or assistants has to go out there, the church is taking on significant liability for them being there. Anything that can be done to mitigate that is to the church and the railways benefit. This Board has had testimony before it in reference to five-foot verses six-foot fences. The difficulties in scaling a five-foot fence verses scaling a six-foot fence. However, there was a need to have scalability over fences was the testimony at the time for people such as police officers and firefighters to be able to get into the premises. Could you see that an eight foot height fence would be a legitimate impediment for the people who have legitimate reasons to get over that fence? The two remaining sides of the playground would remain a five-foot high fence. There is certainly scalability as the entire length of that fence runs a hundred and ninety two feet. Why wouldn’t the church want to extend the eight foot height fence further north into the parking lot area? The same issues are not faced in the parking lot because it is more of an adult used area. The Board asked the applicant if he has noticed at any time when people pick up there, children that some people pick up there fence over the fence without even entering the premises. Yes, this has happened in the past, however the Church has become more strict with the parents in promoting them to enter the premises whenever picking up children. Have you noticed when a train goes by the amount of children that runs to the fence that boarders it? Every one of them runs to that fence. How much more time would you say you would have on your hands if a child did attempt to scale the fence. With an eight-foot fence, the period would give us a head start on getting them down before they reach the Page 6 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 top. The Board then asked the applicant if he felt we should wait for a tragedy to happen before we did anything to prevent it. The applicant responded, “That’s why we’re here”. Mr. Busta moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations and Mr. Madsen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. PZ-4-11-2011238 Claudia Olaso (Owner/Applicant) Alex Galdamex (Agent) 55 NE 99 St. Special Approvals, Sec. 600 & 523: Site Plan approval, Sec. 523.1 Construction Garage conversion. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The applicant did not address the Board. The Board did not question the applicant. Mr. Madsen moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Reese seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. PZ-4-11-2011240 Miami Country Day School Inc. (Owner) Gary Butts (Applicant) Michael McGuinn (Agent) 10653 NE 6 Ave. Special Approvals, Sec. 600; Sec. 604; Sec. 605: Sec. 518(b): Fences in the front yard. ARICLE VII. ERRORS AND VARIANCES; Sec. 702 Hardship variances: Sec. 518. Fences walls and hedges. (a) Maximum height. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: Sec. 504. Sign. Walls signs. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning the sign not on shores property and about the monument signs changing the look from residential to commercial. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board questioned the applicant if they were familiar with the Shores’ residential front yard fence requirements. They answered yes. The Board then asked how a five-foot fence keeps the residential character when the rest of the village r1 and r2 districts are required three and a half feet. The applicant said the code does allow the five foot fence to turn the corner beyond the side yard which would be applicable to a corner lot such as this. In addition to that like many of the homes in the frontage of that area currently there is significant landscaping that goes up five or six seven feet in some cases, looking to keep it down along that edge and have a significant buffer behind it of landscaping to accent those areas. The school is looking to provide a real barrier and a real safety edge to their property. The Board asked why the monument signs couldn’t be smaller. The applicant explains they are keeping a level top throughout. Page 7 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 Mr. Madsen moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Reese seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. PZ-4-11-2011241 Shores Square Investment LLC (Owner) Edmundo Tamayo (Applicant) 9031 Biscayne Blvd. Special Approvals, Sec. 600 & 523: Article of Regulations: Change of use; Medical offices/ weight loss center. Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board questioned staff concerning the sewer lines and parking issues. The applicant did not address the Board. The Board questioned the applicant about the type of medication dispensed. After a discussion Mr. Busta moved to approve the application subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Abramitis seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. PZ-4-11-2011241 Shores Square investment LLC (Owner) Evgenia Loizou (Applicant) Lee Marrero (Agent) 9031 Biscayne Blvd. Special Approvals, Sec. 600: Sec. 523: Article IV Schedule of Regulations: Change of use; Take out to Restaurant. [Board to make final determination] Section 541. Open air café regulations [Board recommendation for presentation to Council] Mr. Dacquisto provided background information and summarized the information on the Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan with the finding that it is consistent with the technical provisions of the code subject to compliance with listed conditions. The Board is taking this application in three parts. The applicant addressed the Board. The Board questioned the applicant about serving alcohol. Mr. Abramitis moved to approve the change of use subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Madsen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. After a discussion by the Board, Mr. Abramitis moved to approve recommendation forwarded to council. Mr. Reese seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. Mr. Abramitis moved to approve the sign subject to staff recommendations. Mr. Reese seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous in favor of the motion 5-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS: a. Draft code language for university parking requirement. Barry University: Request to consider code amendment to reduce parking requirement for universities and to consider scheduling a public hearing to amend the code. b. Discuss review of Draft Zoning Code. Tabled. Page 8 of 8 Planning Board Regular Meeting May 26, 2011 NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting will be on June 23, 2011 ADJOURNMENT The May 26, 2011 Planning & Zoning meeting was adjourned. _________________________ ____________________________ David Dacquisto, Director of Planning Chair, Planning & Zoning Board